Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc.

158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Phyllis Tuliszewski, an office worker employed by the Respondent , testified that in October, November, or December, 1957, Reustle, her immediate superior, stated that if a union (apparently either one) came in, the employees would lose their radio privileges, coffee breaks, and "things like that." Assuming, without deciding, that Reustle made such a statement , it constitutes at most an isolated threat by a minor supervisor, insufficient standing alone to require a remedial order. 4. Alleged claim to know the Office Workers' adherents The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that since on or about August 20, 1957, the Respondent informed its employees "that it knew the names of all sup- porters of [the Office Workers], in a manner constituting interference, restraint and coercion." As related above, there is testimony that in addressing the assembled office employees in October 1957, Forman claimed that he knew every employee who had signed up with the Office Workers. The General Counsel contends that this "tended to . . . make the employees apprehensive , to frighten employees as to future activities on behalf of" the Office Workers. But in the same speech For- man stated that he did not care if the employees solicited for either union , so long as it was not done on company time, which interfered with work; and that they had a right to join a union if they wanted to do so. Moreover, Forman had earlier sent the employees a letter stating, among other things: "The laws protect your right to designate a union." In the context of these assurances , Forman's statement that he knew the identity of all supporters of the Office Workers, if made, was harmless; whatever coercive effect it might have had was adequately neutralized. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. American Freightways Co., Inc., is, and at all material times has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Office Employees International Union, Local 153, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 707, Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers and Helpers , Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, both are, and at all material times have been , labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed any unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a) (1) or (3) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. and International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-RC-2995 and 120-CA-9. July 17, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORIER, AND REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On May 19, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Order in Case No. 12-CA-9,1 in which it found that the Respondent had refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. In so finding, the Board affirmed the validity of the prior proceedings which had resulted in the Union's certification.2 1 117 NLRB 1619. 2 The Board had issued Its Decision and Certification of Representatives on October 26, 1955. Case No. 10-RC-2995, 114 NLRB 716. 124 NLRB No. 18. PURITY BAKING COMPANY 159 Thereafter, the Board's Decision and Order was considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upon petitions to review filed by the Respondent and by four individual intervenors, and the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of its order. On January 14,1959, the court handed down its opinion.' The court set aside the decision of the Board, denied enforcement of the Board's order, and remanded the cases for any appropriate proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. The court rejected the Board's contention that there had been a refusal to bargain because it was not satisfied that the Board, in the representation proceeding, had adequately safeguarded the rights of the individual Intervenors, who should have been permitted to vote. Thereafter, on May 5, 1959, the Respondent filed a motion seeking dismissal of the complaint herein, and revocation of the Union's certificate.' In conformity with the court's opinion, which is the law of the case, we therefore find that the Respondent did not refuse to bargain with the Union, and we^shall dismiss the complaint herein. We shall also revoke the Union's certificate. [The Board dismissed the complaint and revoked the Certification of Representatives issued by the Board on October 26, 1955.] 8 Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 262 F. 2d 933 (C.A. 5). Purity Baking Company and Local No. 63, Bakery and Confec- tionery Workers' International Union of America,' Petitioner Miller-Patton Baking Company 2 and Local No. 63, Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union of America, Peti- tioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-6436 and 13-RC-6434. July 17, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Robert G. Mayberry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from projudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with the case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 The Petitioner local and its International are hereinafter called Local 63 and BCW, respectively. 2 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 124 NLRB No. 19.