Franklin Square Lumber Co.

FRANKLIN SQUARE, LUMBER CO. 510 of union meetings attended, by its employees, and by interrogating its employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise - of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging- in unfair labor practices within the , meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.) APPEND17,` NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant and discharge our employees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organization, engage in surveillance of union meetings attended by our employees, or question our employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of a labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organi- zation; to bargain collectively through representative of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from, any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right nray:be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author- ized in Section 8_ (a) (3) of the Act., All our employees are free to become. or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. FRUIT INDUSTRIES, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered; defaced; or covered by any other material. Richard T. Baylis, et al. co-partners d/b/a Franklin Square Lum- ber Co.,' Petitioner and Local 1205, affiliated with the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL and Local 719, affiliated with the International Brotherhood - of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL. ^ Case No. 2-RM-693. October 18,1955 DECISION AND ORDER _Jpona petition duly filed under Section. 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations 'Act, a hearing was held before Abraham Lehman, hearing officer. , The hearing gfftcer's, rulings made ' at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 The name of the 1Imiloyer appears as amended. 114 NLRB No. 87. 520 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL -LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in' this, case;=the, Board finds : 1. The,Erriployer; is engaged in commerce within .the meaning of 'thee"Act:... 2, .^Tlie la bor.organizations,;involved do not, claim to 'represent any employees of the Employer., 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 98 (c) (1) and (7) of the Act. The Employer is engaged' in the manufacture and sale of lumber and' lumber-products. at its plant in, Long Island, New York. ` The Employer filed- the instant petition on April 26, 1955, seeking a present determination of the bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees, with the usual exclusions. 'The hearing first took place on July, 14, 1955, was adjourned to July 25 and then to August 4. Hoffman, one of the copartners of the' Em- ployer, testified that picketing by Local 1205 began the last week in .March and continued until June 16, when it ceased after the Supreme Court of New York, issued, an injunction pendente lite against the 'picketing. He also testified-,,that during the picketing period, Local 1205 ,made several demands ;upon. him for recognition and for the, "execution of a contract; that the union representatives cursed and vili- fied the employees, obstructed entrances and exits of the premises, aridpicketed the plant of Hoffman's brother in order to coerce the Em- ployer into signing a contract. The Union, Local 1205, denied that any demands for recognition or for, a contract had, ever been made, that any obstructions had occurred and stated that the purpose of the picketing was solely to organize the employees. At the hearing, the Union disclaimed having any present majority representation among the employees concerned and denied claiming that, it, ever had such majority. As for Local 719, the evidence is uncontradicted that this Union had presented the Employer with a contract, suggesting that before Hoffman signed any contract with any other local, it would be to his benefit to see what Local 719 had to offer. It is conceded that no fur- 'ther'demands were made by this Local; that it had never participated in `the picketing; and that at the hearing it disclaimed any interest whatever in the employees or in the proceeding. We find it unnecessary to resolve these obvious contradictions in the testimony with respect to the activity of Local 1205. The Board has,held on numerous occasions that a union may withdraw its claim to, representation by its subsequent conduct, by statements made at the hearing, or even after the, Board has issued its Decision and Direc- tion, but that such disclaimer, if it is to be recognized, must be clear and unequivocal and not inconsistent with its acts.;:2 ` Thus, the Board 2 Coca-Cola Bottling Co of Walla-Walla, Washington, 80 NLRB 1063. "FOOD-FAIR STORES, INC. ' ,L `X21 has held-that picketing-of the Employer 's premises is inconsistent with sueh ^•disclaime'r.3 'In-the instant case; however, 'the evid'en4is run- contradicted" that picketing had ceased 1'inonth before the hearing opened; that, it ,had not. been resumed when the hearing, continued several weeks later and has not recurred thereafter. In these circum- -stances Andnotwithstanding'the fact that the cessation of picketing^in this 'case 'was pursuant to the, injunction of 'the' New York Supreme Court, we find that the Union's conduct; at and after the hearing,`'has not-been inconsistent with the disclaimer of interest made at the hear- ing-'e We therefore find the disclaimer to be unequivocal 'arid that a question of representation does -not exist to support the, Employer's petition. We shall accordingly order that'the petition for representaL tion of 'employees filed by the Employer-Petitioner be dismissed on the basis"of the disclaimer of interest by Local 1205 and Local 719. However, the Board will entertain a motion by the Employer, request ing reinstatement of the petition, in the event that either union within 6-months from the date of the Order, engages in conduct inconsistent with its' disclaimer. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 'Michael Silvers, d/b/a Silvers Sportswear . 108 NLRB 588 , Doak Ancraft Co., Inct, 110 NLRB 792 , 893;' Swee-T-Shsrts, Inc', 111 NLRB 377; 11 inter Gi ocer Company, 111 NLRB 936; Francis Plating Co, 109 NLRB 35 Food Fair Stores, Inc. and Local 580; Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. f-RC-7642. October 18,1955 - ' DECISION AND ORDER - ' . Upon a petition duly filed under Section '('c) of the National Labor Relations' Act, a hearing was held before Harry E. Knowlton , hearing officer. ' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. - ' 3'. No 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, for the following reasons: The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the op, eration of a chain of retail supermarkets in -the States of New York, 114 NLRB No. 92