Amalgamated Union, Local 5, UAW, Independent

292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 6. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO; is and at all times commencing and since January 22, 1960, has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. 7. By failing and refusing at all times, commencing and since January 22, 1960, to bargain with International Union, United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining rep- resentative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of supervisors, as specified in paragraph 6 of the complaint, which antedate the purchase of Respondent on December 28, 1959, or by surveillance as alleged in paragraph 8 of the complaint , or by warning its employees that it would not grant economic benefits, as alleged in paragraph 9 of the complaint. 9. 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.] Amalgamated Union, Local 5, UAW, Independent and Dynamic Manufacturing Corporation . Cases Nos. 2-CC-464 and 2-CB- 2265. April 26, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On October 29, 1958, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as indicated below.' i Based on the Supreme Court's decision in N L R B. v. Drivers, Chau f eurs and Helpers Local Union No . 639, etc. ( Curtis Brothers), 362 U.S. 274 , contrary to the Trial Examiner, the Board finds that the Respondent did not violate Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. 131 NLRB No. 43. AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT 293 ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Amalgamated Union, Local 5, UAW, Independent, its officers, repre- sentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging employees of Dy- namic or any other employer to engage in a strike or a concerted re- fusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma- terials, or commodities or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require Dynamic to recognize and bargain with Respondent as the representative of its employees as long as Vibrator's Union, or any other labor organization other than Respondent, is the duly certified representative of said employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for the Second Region for posting, Dynamic willing, at all locations where notices to Dynamic's employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Re- gion shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DYNAMIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Dynamic Manufacturing Corporation, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employ- ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, with an object of forcing or requiring Dynamic, Manufacturing Corporation to recognize and bargain with us as the representative of Dynamic's employees as long as Vibrator's Union, or any other labor organization other than ourselves, is the duly certified representative of said employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT, Labor Organization. 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (61 Stat. 136), was heard at New York, New York, on September 29 and 30, 1958, pursuant to due notice and with all parties represented by counsel. The complaint, which was issued on June 13, 1958, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' and which was based on charges duly filed and served, alleged in substance that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1),(A) and 8(b)(4),(C) of the Act in that: (1) Respondent, a minority Union, had since March 28, picketed Dynamic's plant with an object of forcing Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it despite the fact that another labor organization, Vibrator's Union, was duly certified by the Board's Regional Director on May 16 as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit; and (2) by such picketing and by requests, appeals, directions, etc., Respondent had induced employees of Dynamic and of other employers doing business with it to engage in strikes and concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, transport, and otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, and materials, and to perform services for their respective employers, thereby bringing economic coercion to bear upon the Company with the object stated above. Respondent answered on June 25, denying that it had engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged, and pleading as a further defense that its picketing was peaceful 'The , General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board Respondent is referred to as the Union, and the Charging Party as Dynamic and as the Company. All events herein occurred in 1958. AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT 295 and was for the purpose of organizing Dynamic's employees. Respondent also pleaded that Vibrator's Union was a company-dominated and assisted organization and that Dynamic, through coercion and intimidation, had denied the employees the right to a free choice of a bargaining representative and had coerced them to designate the Vibrator's Union as their said representative. The latter defenses were stricken at the hearing, on the General Counsel's motion, on the authority of Meat & Provision Drivers Union, Local No. 626, etc. (Lewis Food Company), 115 NLRB 890, and Local No. 224, etc. (Queen Ribbon & Carbon Co., Inc.), 116 NLRB 890. Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the conclusion of the hear- ing, is denied for reasons hereinafter stated. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Respondent, a New York corporation with its principal office in New York City, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of massage and therapeutic equipment. Its annual sales are in excess of $ 100,000, of which approximately 95 percent are to extrastate points. It is, therefore, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Employees of Dynamic organized themselves into a union, under the name of Vibrator's Union, a few days before March 19, for the purpose of obtaining better working conditions, raises, and other similar benefits. On March 19, through their officers, they entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with Dynamic, effective on that date, for a term of 2 years. Vibrator's Union is therefore a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The representation case; Respondent's charges On March 19, Vibrator's Union filed a representation petition with the Board's Second Region in Case No. 2-RC-9350, for a unit consisting of Dynamic's produc- tion, maintenance, and shipping department employees, excluding clerical and office employees, professional, and supervisory employees, representing that no other parties or organizations had claimed recognition and that no other unions were interested in the said unit. On March 26 Dynamic and Vibrator's entered into a consent election agreement, which was approved by the Regional Director on March 27. An election was held on the basis of that agreement on May 8,2 with Vibrator's polling 10 valid votes in its favor and with no votes against it (there being approximately 10 eligible voters). On May 16 the Regional Director issued, on behalf of the Board, a formal certifica- tion of Vibrator's as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit involved in the proceeding. Respondent filed unfair labor practice charges on March 28, as amended April 9, in case No. 2-CA-5856, alleging that Dynamic had violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act with respect to the Vibrator's Union. which charges were dismissed by the Regional Director on April 29 for insufficient evidence. Respondent filed further charges on May 2 against Dynamic and Vibrator's Cases Nos. 2-CA-5915 and 2- CB-235, respectively, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) by Dynamic and of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) by Vibrator's, which charges were dis- missed by the Regional Director on May 7 for insufficient evidence. Appeals from the dismissal of all the foregoing charges, taken by Respondent to the General Coun- sel's office in Washington, were dismissed by the General Counsel on September 5 on the basis of insufficient evidence,3 2 Respondent's counsel represented that in the meantime Respondent had learned of the pending proceeding and had been directed by the Regional Director to file a showing of interest when it produced only a single card, signed after the consent election agree- ment, Respondent was refused permission to intervene and was denied a place on the ballot because It had made no showing of interest prior to the consent election agreement 2A Section 10(1) proceeding for an injunction is pending In the Federal court, but no hearing has been held The parties stipulated on June 28 that the hearing therein be 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The picketing and its object On March 28 Respondent began picketing Respondent 's plant, which occupied a building fronting on Randall Avenue and extending back along Faile Street. Pickups and deliveries were made from twin front doors on Randall Avenue, but plant em- ployees used only a side door on Faile Street, near the rear end of the building. The picketing continued until after the filing of the injunction petition . A single paid employee of the Union, Carlos Quiroz, patrolled mainly along Randall Avenue,4 carrying a sign which bore the following legend: THE EMPLOYEES OF DYNAMIC ARE NON-UNION HELP US ORGANIZE THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS SHOP AND ESTABLISH UNION WORKING CONDITIONS LOCAL 5, U.A.W. AFFILIATED WITH C.U.A. Witnesses for the General Counsel testified that the picket frequently stopped trucks as they approached the front entrances for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries and that in many of such cases the drivers left without making the pickup or delivery. Joseph Cavalieri, a driver for Dunwel Wood Products, testified, for example, to two occasions when he was stopped by the picket, who told him "No deliveries here," that there was a "phony union here," and that Local 5 was trying to organize the plant. On the first occasion Cavalieri left without making the delivery, but he later returned and made it There was also testimony by Morris Marks, Ralph Deneroff, and Harriet Deneroff (all officers of Dynamic) concerning a lengthy running conversation with Benjamin Ross (also known as Krakofski), general manager of Respondent , which occurred on the afternoon and evening of April 25 . To the extent that it is material to the issues herein, their testimony was in substance that Ross stated that Dynamic should sign up with him because he (or his union) was the cheapest in the business, that he would keep the picket there for 6 months if necessary, and that sooner or later Dynamic would have to give in and give him a contract. The Deneroffs also testified to a telephone conversation on June 5, between Ross and Ralph Deneroff (to which Harriet listened on an extension phone) during which Deneroff inquired why Ross had not withdrawn the picket in view of the certification of the Vibrator's Union. Ross replied that he was aware of the cer- tification, but that did not make any difference, and that the situation was the same as before, because the decision (dismissing Respondent's unfair labor practice charges against Dynamic ) could be reversed by the Board in Washington. When Ross stated further that a court order was about the only thing which would stop him from picketing , Deneroff said that he would get an injunction. Quiroz testified that since May 16 he continued to ask employees to join the Union but at no time asked , requested, or directed them to go out on strike, nor did he ask them to stop working for Dynamic. He also denied that he requested the employees of any employer to go out on strike or to refuse to handle or work on goods of Dynamic. He made no denial , however, of Cavalieri's testimony. Ross admitted having a lengthy conversation with the Deneroffs and Marks on April 25, but he denied the significant portions of their testimony (i.e., that he intended to picket for 6 months, or until Dynamic capitulated, and that he demanded that it sign a contract with him ). Ross testified that Quiroz was with him on the occasion, and Quiroz testified that he was present except for a portion of the time and that he did not hear Ross make the statements which Marks and the Deneroffs attributed to him . Neither Marks nor the Deneroffs referred to Quiroz' presence. Indeed, all their testimony indicated that Ross was unaccompanied on the occasion. In resolving the above credibility issue, there are two main considerations. One is the mutually corroborative testimony of the three witnesses for the General Counsel, and the other is that Ross ' demeanor and manner of testifying was such that his testimony cannot be credited except where it received substantial corrobora- adjourned to September 9 and later stipulated that the hearing be further adjourned to November 18; that pending the hearing , the picketing by Respondent would cease, but that the withdrawal of the picketing would not constitute an admission or concession of the allegations of the petition for injunction , nor would the stipulation prevent the Union from soliciting Dynamic's employees for membership in Respondent & The General Counsel's witnesses testified that they saw the picket patrol only on Randall Avenue Quiroz testified that he also sometimes talked with the employees along Faile Street as they approached to enter the plant , but that at such times he was not wearing his sign Though the point is of slight materiality, the conflict is reconcilable by a finding that Quiroz patrolled with a sign only on Randall Avenue. AMALGAMATED UNION, LOCAL 5, UAW, INDEPENDENT 297 tion. Quiroz' testimony did not constitute such corroboration in view of the lengthy period over which the conversation occurred, his admitted absence for a part of the time, and the fact that none of the General Counsel's witnesses testified that he was present at the time when Ross made the crucial statements which they testified to. As for the telephone conversation in June, Ross admitted that Deneroff asked him to remove the picket and that he refused to do so. He testified further that Deneroff then tried to bribe him or buy him off, and he denied that he demanded recognition or a contract at the time . Ross' testimony, being unsupported here, cannot be credited over the mutually corroborative testimony of the Deneroffs. C. Respondent's case After the striking of Respondent's affirmative defenses concerning the alleged status of Vibrator's Union as an assisted and dominated union, much of Respond- ent's evidence was received as an offer of proof in the form of Ross' testimony in question and answer form. Other evidence, though offered and received in sup- port of Respondent's denial that Vibrator's was a labor organization, amounted to little more than an attempt to support the stricken affirmative defenses. It is there- fore unnecessary to summarize such evidence in detail . In fact, Respondent's counsel conceded that the evidence which it presented to the Regional Office in support of its charges was hearsay; and much of Ross' testimony at the hearing concerning Respondent's alleged efforts in January and February to organize Dy- namic's employees at its former location was similarly based on hearsay. Ross' claim that he later assigned some 5 organizers to Dynamic's plant in March is in- credible in view of the fact that only some 10 to 15 employees were involved and in view of the credited testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses that there were no organizational activities by Respondent prior to March 26. All that remained of Respondent's case which was material to the issues were Ross' denials that he ever sought recognition or a contract and his claim that Re- spondent's activities were purely organizational. But that testimony has been re- jected, and the contrary testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses has been accepted, for reasons above stated. Because of Respondent's strenuous attack on the Vibrator's Union and on the Regional Director's dismissal of its charges, further reference should be made to the Lewis Food and Queen Ribbon cases, supra, on the authority of which the Trial Examiner struck Respondent's affirmative defenses. Briefly stated, the effect of the Board's holdings is to preclude collateral litigation of an alleged violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act in complaint proceedings involving alleged violations of Section 8(b) (4) (C). See, a g., Queen Ribbon & Carbon Co. Inc, supra, at 891, 916-917. The only significant distinction between those cases and the present one is that Respondent here first attempted a direct attack under Section 8(a)(2), though the dismissal of its charges prevented it from receiving a hearing and enabled the repre- sentation case to proceed. But that distinction is not a material one and does not render the above cases inapposite. To hold otherwise would permit the litigation on their merits of charges on which the General Counsel has declined to proceed, a matter on which he has final authority under Section 3(d). As the Board pointed out in Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361, 364-365, such a holding would create a situation in which the Board would be acting as a forum "for con- sidering the content of charges which the General Counsel, for reason satisfactory to himself, has thought it proper to dismiss." Though the Board is precluded from passing directly on the propriety of the Regional Director's action in dismissing Respondent's charges, it is nevertheless free, if it so desires, to review administratively his actions in the representation pro- ceeding, since the statute (Section 9) specifically entrusts all such matters to the Board itself. D. Concluding findings 1. The Section 8(b) (4) (C) case Section 8(b) (4) (C) provides, so far as here relevant, that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to induce or, encourage the employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, transport, handle, or work on any goods, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the repre- sentative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9. 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The certification of Vibrator's Union was established by stipulation and by receipt of the certification itself. The proscribed object was plainly established by the .credited testimony of Marks and the Deneroffs concerning Ross' efforts to have them sign a contact with Respondent. The remaining factor of inducement of employees was supplied by the picketing and the testimony concerning the stopping of trucks and the interference with pick- cups and deliveries at Dynamic's plant. Indeed, the Board has held that (1) the maintenance of a traditional picket line before employee entrances-wholly apart from the literal appeal of the signs carried by the pickets-constitutes an act of in- ducement or encouragement of employees who must perform services behind the picket line, to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services for their employer; and (2) such picketing-whether or not it succeeds in bringing about a strike or concerted refusal by employees to perform work-is within the reach of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act, if it is directed to one of the objectives therein prohibited. Dis- trict Lodge No. 24, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (Industrial Chrome Plating Co.), 121 NLRB 1298 (decided October 14, 1958); Knit Goods Workers' Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- -CIO (James Knitting Mills, Inc), 117 NLRB 1468, 1469; Laundry, Linen Supply, etc. Local No. 928, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. (Southern Service Company, Ltd.), 118 NLRB 1435, 1437; Local No. 25, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union et al. (King's Bakery, Inc.), 116 NLRB 290, 293. It is, therefore, concluded and found that on and after May 16, 1958,5 Respondent by its said picketing, appeals, and directions, induced and encouraged employees of employers to engage in a strike and in a concerted refusal to use, transport, handle, and work on goods, articles and materials, and to perform services for their respec- tive employers, with an object of forcing and requiring Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it, despite the fact that Vibrator's Union was the certified representative of Dynamic's employees in an appropriate unit in a Section 9 proceeding. Lewis Food Company, supra; Queen Ribbon and Carbon Company, supra; Industrial Chrome Plating Company, supra. 2. The Section 8(b)(1)(A) case Section 8(b)(1)(A) provides, so far as here relevant, that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights; and Section 7 (in part) guarantees to em- ployees the right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing. The Board has held in a line of recent decisions 6 that picketing by a minority union for recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of an employer's employees is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) because it results in economic restraint and coercion of the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The rationale of the Board in reaching this conclusion is fully explicated in the Curtis and Alloy cases (see footnote 6) and need not be here repeated. Those decisions, being plainly in point, constitute precedents which are binding upon the Trial Examiner. It is therefore concluded and found that by picketing Dynamic's plant on and after March 28, 1958, when it did not represent a majority of Dynamic's employees in an appropriate unit, with an object of requiring Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it, Respondent restrained and coerced Dynamic's employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 5 Though the complaint charged a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (C) beginning on or about March 28, there could, of course, have been no violation of this section prior to the certification of Vibrator's Union e Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Local 649, International Bortherhood of Teamsters, etc (Curtis Brothers, Inc ), 119 NLRB 232; International Association of Machinists, Lodge 942, AFL-CIO (Alloy Manufacturing Company, etc), 119 NLRB 307; Willard W. Shepherd et at d/b/a Shepherd Machinery Company, 119 NLRB 320; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et at. (Rufalo's Trucking Service, Inc), 119 NLRB 1268; Paint. Varnish & Lacquer Makers Union, Local 1242, et at. (Andrew Brown Company), 120 NLRB 1425; General Teamsters, Packers, Food Processors and Warehousemen Union Local No. 912, et at. (H. A. Rider & Sons ), 120 NLRB 1577; Joint Council of Sportswear, etc (Harou, Inc and En Tour), 120 NLRB 659; United Rubber, Cork. Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 511 (O' Sullivan Rubber Corpora- tion), 121 NLRB 1439 J.E. PLASTICS MFG. CORP. 299 IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in activities which violate Section 8(b)(C) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action of the type conventionally or- ^dered in such cases, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in .the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Dynamic is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union and Vibrator's Union are labor organizations within the -meaning of the Act. 3. At all times since May 16 , 1958, Vibrator's Union has been the duly certified representative of the employees of Dynamic in an appropriate unit , under the pro- visions of Section 9 of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Dynamic and other employers to engage in a strike or in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to per- form services for their respective employers, with an object of forcing or requiring Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it as the representative of Dynamic's em- ployees in an appropriate unit, at a time when Vibrator's Union was the duly certi- fied bargaining representative of the said employees in said unit, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act. 5. By picketing Dynamic's plant when it did not represent a majority of Dynamic's employees, with an object of forcing Dynamic to recognize and bargain with it, thereby restraining and coercing Dynamic's employees in the exercise of rights guar- .anteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with Dy- namic's operations as set forth under section I, above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and .substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ;[Recommendations omitted from publication.] J.E. Plastics Mfg. Corp. and General Paper & Artificial Flower Workers Union , Local 679, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA- 7324. April 27, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On January 11, 1961, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Interme- diate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' I The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 1131 NLRB No. 44.