Banner Yarn Dyeing Corp.

.298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Banner Yarn Dyeing Corporation ; National Gypsum Company; Mason Au & Magenheimer Confectionery Manufacturing 'Company, Inc.; Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company ; Stahl-Meyer, -Inc.; Rockwood Chocolate Co., Inc.; and William Neville and Local 30, 30A, 30B, and 30C, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Party in Interest. Cases Nos. 2-CA- 7791-1, 2-CA-7791-4, 2-CA-7791-5, 2-CA-7791-7, 2-CA-7791-8, ,and 2-CA-7791-10. January 15, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER SEVERING CASES AND REMANDING On June 6, 1961, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding. At the hearing, each of the Respondents and the Party in Interest joined in a motion to dismiss the complaint as being insufficient on its face. In -addition, a joint motion to sever the consolidated cases was made. The Trial Examiner dismissed the proceeding at the hearing on the ground that the averments in the complaint failed to allege a cause ,of action under Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. He also denied the motion to sever. Thereafter, the General Counsel petitioned the Board for review of the Trial Examiner's ruling. All Respondents and the Party in Interest have filed briefs in opposition to the petition for review.' Respondents also urge that, in the event the Trial Ex- aminer's dismissal of the complaint be reversed and the proceeding be remanded for further hearing, the consolidated cases should be severed. The Board has duly considered the averments in the complaint and is of the opinion that the allegations contained therein, if proven, are sufficient to sustain a finding of a violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel's petition for review and shall remand this proceeding for further hearing before a Trial Examiner and for the preparation and issuance of appropriate Intermediate Reports. The Board has also considered the joint motion to sever the instant cases and is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. The complaint, in charging each of the Respondents with a violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, does not allege that the Respondents acted jointly or in concert in the conduct alleged to be unlawful, or that ,any common relationship existed between the acts of one Respondent and those of another. In fact, the record shows that, for the most part, the various Respondents are engaged in different industries and 'Respondents' request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the record and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties 135 NLRB No. 32. COWLITZ VENEER COMPANY 299 the only factor common to all is that each Respondent has a separate contract with the same union local. In our opinion, consolidation of these cases is not warranted. We therefore grant the joint motion to sever. [The Board remanded the above-entitled cases to the Regional Director for the Second Region for the purpose of arranging a further hearing herein and authorized the Regional Director to issue notice thereof. The Board also severed the above-entitled consolidated cases.] Cowlitz Veneer Company and Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2767 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-CA-2219. January 16, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On October 25, 1961, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean 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 Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and a request for oral argument.' 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusion's, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner .2 'Because. in our opinion the record. exceptions, and brief adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties, this request is hereby denied 2In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings , we correct the following inadvertencles which appear in the Intermediate Report . Audrey Meade is excluded from the list of employees recalled arter May 5, 1961 (page 304, line 25 ). The finding that Respond- ent engaged in discrimination against Local 2767 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is corrected by deleting the name of the Union and inserting the names of employees Zelia Hessler , Dorothy Callahan, Lowell Hessler, and Byron Barker (page 305, lines 50 and 51) Member Rodgers agrees with his colleagues that Respondent had knowledge of the union activities of those employees found to have been discriminatorily selected for discharge. However, in reaching this result, Member Rodgers does not rely upon the small comple- ment of Respondent 's employees or the fact that Respondent's plant is located in a town of few inhabitants. - 135 NLRB No. 31.