Sach-Lawlor Co.

SACHS-LAWLOR COMPANY 507 ent make whole these last named employees for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them, by paying to each a sum of money equal to that which he or she would normally have earned from September 17, 1953, until the date of reinstatement or the offer of such, less net earnings during the said period. The back pay provided for herein shall be com- puted on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289; earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect on the back-pay liability for any other period. Having found, further, that the Respondent, by various acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act, and because Respondent's discriminatory discharges "go to the very heart of the Act" (N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co, 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C. A. 4)) and indicate a purpose to defeat the self-organization of its em- ployees, I am persuaded that the unfair labor practices committed are related to other unfair labor practices proscribed and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. Accord- ingly, in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guar- anteed by the Act. May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376, 386- 392. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I have reached the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Garment Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the 18 individuals referred to in the preceding section entitled "The Remedy," thereby discouraging membership in the United Garment Workers, AFL, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 3. By such conduct, and by other acts interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce and constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint of discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of those employees listed in Appendix A, nor has it interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees by any acts or conduct other than those found herein to have been committed in violation of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Sachs-Lawlor Company and International Association of Ma- chinists District Lodge No. 86, AFL, and International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 775, AFL, Petitioners. Case No. 30-RC- 1011. April ,28,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 112 NLRB No. 74. 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer neither admits nor denies that it is engaged in commerce. The record discloses that the Employer, a Colorado cor- poration, is engaged in manufacturing and distributing metal, plastic, and rubber stamping and marking devices. During 1954, it sold fin- ished products to customers located outside the State of Colorado valued at approximately $70,000. We find that the Employer is en- gaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioners seek a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Larimer and Market Streets plants,' includ- ing truckdrivers, the janitor, shipping and billing clerks, countermen, wrappers, and delivery boys. The Employer, while in general agree- ment with the appropriateness of the unit, would exclude the ship- ping and billing clerks, the countermen , the wrappers, and the de- livery boys, as office employees from the production and maintenance unit. These are the employees of the Employer 's retail store. No other union seeks to represent any of the employees involved herein. The Employer is a manufacturer and distributor of metal, plastic, and rubber stamping devices. Its two plants , located across the street from each other on Larimer and Market Streets in Denver, Colorado, are a single manufacturing entity producing rubber and steel stamps, steel roller devices, and etched metal and plastic plates. There are 28 employees engaged in the manufacturing operation, all of whom are supervised by a plant superintendent in charge of production. In addition to the manufacturing operation, the Employer operates a retail store in part of the Larimer Street plant. The retail opera- tion consists of a store and shipping room from which the Employer sells its own and other manufacturers' products at retail . The per- sonnel at the retail store consists of selling clerks, called countermen, shipping and billing clerks, wrappers, and delivery boys. When an 1 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. 2 The Employer contends in effect that the petition should be dismissed because two labor organizations may not appropriately bargain as joint representatives and because the showing of interest submitted by the unions is insufficient to support a joint petition We find no merit in these contentious as the Board has consistently held that two or more labor organizations may appropriately bargain as joint representative and the adequacy of a showing of interest is an administrative matter, not litigable by the parties . Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82. 3 The parties agreed to exclude the one employee at the Employer 's 17th Street, Denver, Colorado, retail store. AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 509 order is received it is filled by a counterman. The customer is billed by a shipping and billing clerk. The order is prepared for delivery by the wrappers and delivered by the delivery boys. There is no previous history of bargaining affecting any of the employees involved in this proceeding. On the basis of previous Board decisions 4 and the record herein, and as no union seeks to represent the retail store em- ployees on any other basis, we believe that a single unit, including the retail store employees, is appropriate. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Larimer and Market Streets, Denver, Colorado, plants, including truckdrivers, the janitor, shipping and billing clerks, countermen, wrappers, and delivery boys, but excluding office and clerical em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends, in effect, that no joint bargaining is intended by the joint petitioners and opposes their placement on the ballot as a single joint representative. However, such placement on the ballot is consistent with Board precedent.5 In the event that the joint petitioners are successful in the election hereinafter directed, they will be certified jointly as the bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the entire unit. The Employer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. * Cf Witwer G rocery Company, 110 NLRB 951; Rheem Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 904, and cases cited therein ; J. J Moreau & Son, Inc., 107 NLRB 999 and cases cited therein 5 The Stwkless Corporation, 110 NLRB 2202 ; Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82; Webb-Linn Printing Company, 95 NLRB 1488. American Can Company and United Steelworkers of America, CIO,' and International Association of Machinists, AFL,2 Peti- tioners. Cases Nos. 10-RC-3014 and 10-RC-3025. April 28,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing 3 was held before Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., 1 Herein called the Steelworkers 2 Herein called the IAM. B Although the cases were not formally consolidated by the General Counsel , they were heard together as if consolidated by agreement of the parties. For the purposes of this decision , the cases are hereby consolidated. 112 NLRB No. 67.