Riverside Wholesale Distributors

686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 7. By conditioning the prosecution of grievances upon compliance with the "clear- ance" conditions set forth in conclusion number 3, the Union has violated Section 8(,b)(1)(A) of the Act. 8. The unfair labor practices found herein affect commerce within Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act 9. Except as stated herein , the record does not preponderantly establish that Respondents engaged in other alleged violations. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Mayer B. Cohen , Bernard Cohen and Peary Cohen d/b/a River- side Wholesale Distributors and Local 597, Chauffeurs, Team- sters, Warehousemen & Helpers, a/w International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case No. 1-CA-3521. January 30, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On October 18, 1961, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his. Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefroni.and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board 1 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions sand brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon 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 Respondents, Mayer B. Cohen, Bernard Cohen and Peary Cohen d/b/a Riverside Wholesale Dis- tributors, Burlington, Vermont, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Local 597, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, a/w International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of their employees, by discriminatorily dis- 1 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, Fanning, and Brown]. 135 NLRB No. 74. RIVERSIDE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS 687 charging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner dis- criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals; interrogating employees as to their union membership or sympathies in a manner con- stituting interference, restraint, and coercion; fostering the impression that such meetings are under surveillance; and polling employees as to their union sentiments. (c) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment, with the above-named labor organization, as the exclusive representative of their employees in the following appropriate unit : All employees of the Respondents at their two operations in Bur- lington, Vermont, including drivers, warehousemen, checkers, and ticket girls, excluding office clerical employees, guards, profes- sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) In zany other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose 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 may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re- porting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all of the Respondents' employees in the above-described appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. (b) Offer employees John and Olivia Cruickshank immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and Theresa Francis whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu- 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due, and the rights of employment under the terms of the Order. (d) Post at their Burlington, Vermont, operations, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 discourage membership in Local 597, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, a/w International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic reprisals; in- terrogate employees as to their union membership or sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion; foster the impression that union meetings are under surveillance; or poll employees as to their union sentiments. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or co- erce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above- named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives- of their own choosing, and, to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or .other mutual` aid 6r' ,protection,• or to refrain from= any or all such' activities, except to' the extent that such right may be affected RIVERSIDE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS 689 by an agreement requiring membership, in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer to John and Olivia Cruickshank immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and Theresa Francis whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrim- ination against them. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above- named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described below, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The unit is : All employees at our two Burlington, Vermont, operations, including drivers, warehousemen, checkers, and ticket girls, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. MAYER B. COHEN, BERNARD COHEN AND PEARY COHEN D/B/A RIVERSIDE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office (24 School Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts; Telephone Number, Lafayette 3-8100) if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges in the above-entitled case having been filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was held in Burlington, Vermont, on August 29, 1961, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally , and to file briefs . Briefs have been received from the Respondent and General Counsel.' 1 The due date of briefs was September 26, 1961 , and briefs from both General Counsel and the Respondent were received in Washington on September 25. On October 2 a document entitled "Reply Brief" was received from the Respondent , and on the same 634449-62-vol. 135-45 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Mayer B. Cohen, Bernard Cohen, and Peary Cohen, herein called the Respondent, are copartners doing business under the trade name of Riverside Wholesale Dis- tributors. The Respondent maintains places of business at two locations in Burling- ton, Vermont, referred to in the record as the Main Street and Chase Mills loca- tions. It is engaged in the distribution of paper goods, household items, sporting goods, toys, and related products. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint in these proceedings the Respondent shipped goods valued at more than $50,000 from its Burlington locations to points outside the State of Vermont. The Respondent concedes and it is found that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. IL THE CHARGING UNION Local 597, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and issues All events raised as issues by the complaint, refusal to bargain, unlawful dis- charges, and other interference, restraint, and coercion, occurred within a period of a week after the Charging Union began organizing the Respondent's 18 employees, at both locations, early in June 1961. The individuals claimed by General Counsel to have been unlawfully discharged are John and Olivia Cruickshank and TheresaFrancis. B. The events involved Credible and largely unchallenged documentary evidence establishes that by June 9, 1961, 13 of 18 employees on the Respondent's payroll of that date had signed cards authorizing the Charging Union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. - On that date Charles Raymond, business agent of the local, took the cards to the Respondent's office at the Main Street location, where he informed Mayer Cohen, in the presence of the other partners, that he had cards signed by a majority of the employees and asked to be recognized as the collective-bargaining agent. Cohen replied that if his employees wanted a union he would have a vote conducted and determine the fact for himself. Raymond questioned the legality of such action and said that, if an election must be held, he would petition the Board for one. Although Raymond filed such a petition for certification, it was later withdrawn upon the filing of unfair labor practice charges in these proceedings. Shortly after Raymond left his office Cohen telephoned Supervisor Evelyn Harrington at the Chase Mills location and asked her if she knew anything about union organization there. That same noon, June 9, Harrington proceeded to make inquiry. She asked three "ticket girls" who worked under her,supervision, Olivia Cruickshank, Gloria Stoddert, and Theresa Francis, about signing union cards. Stoddert denied that she had signed one, Cruickshank and Francis gave no reply. According to Harrington's own testimony on cross-examination both Cruickshank and Francis had "guilty looks" on their faces following her interrogation. date a memorandum from General Counsel objecting to the receipt of the "Reply Brief," on the grounds that Board Rules '(Section 1'02'42) do not provide for such and that it was dated September 28-2 days after briefs were due in Washington . There is merit in General Counsel's objections . The Trial Examiner rejects the "Reply Brief" as well as a later communication from the Respondent which in 'effect objects to General Counsel's objections . The relevant documents , however, may be placed in the record as "Rejected Exhibits." RIVERSIDE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS 691 It is reasonably inferred from circumstances admitted by Harrington that she promptly reported the result of her inquiry to Cohen. And according to her affidavit, placed in evidence by the Respondent, "Mr. Mayer Cohen told me to let these two specific girls go." Also according to her testimony, he gave her these instructions after "I called him first." Later that afternoon Harrington gave both Cruickshank and Francis their checks, accompanied by typewritten notices signed by Cohen bearing the simple text: "After today you services are no longer required." About half an hour after the two girls had been thus discharged, Charles Blow, an employee who had circulated union cards among others, was called into Mayer Cohen's office. Cohen told him he had just had a telephone call from Theresa Francis, who wanted to know if she had been laid off for what he (Blow) had "started." Cohen asked what he had started. Blow denied "starting" anything, but did tell Cohen that maybe he "had instigated something ." Cohen then warned him against "sticking" his neck out. On June 10 a number of the Respondent's employees met with the union representa- tive at a local parking lot. Among them were the two girls discharged the day before and John Cruickshank, husband of Olivia. On June 13 Foreman Jasper Blow told his son, employee Charles Blow, that Cohen knew of the parking lot meeting on June 10, "knew who was there and what was said." 2 Also on June 13 Supervisor Harrington, upon Cohen's instructions, assembled the warehouse employees , including the remaining "ticket girls," and told them, in substance, that they were to vote whether or not they wanted to be represented by a union. Before the voting, however, she first told them she thought they were "crazy" to join the Union, and that if the Union got in they would lose privileges then enjoyed. Harrington herself then conducted the vote, passing out blank slips upon which the employees were told to write "yes" or "no." Credible and undisputed testimony establishes that both Harrington and the ware- house foreman, James McKinstry, cast ballots. Harrington collected the slips and according to her own testimony she and McKinstry promptly took them to Cohen .3 One of the warehouse employees voting "yes" that day was John Cruickshank. His testimony is undisputed that he handed his ballot, folded, to Harrington but the paper was so thin that his writing was legible through it. The texture of the votes, placed in evidence by the Respondent, fully supports Cruickshank's observation. Cruickshank, an employee for 12 years and who, according to uncontradicted testimony, filled in for the foreman during his absence, was the employee at the Chase Mills location who distributed union cards for signature. And as noted above, he was present at the union meeting in the parking dot on June 10. Later in the day of June 13, following Harrington's poll, he found attached to his timecard 'a slip which stated: "Your services will no longer be required after today due to lack of work." On June 12, the Union filed its petition with the Board, and the Respondent was duly notified. On June 14 Foreman Blow told employees, in effect, that if,the Union came in work for them would be reduced. On June 1,6 Mayer Cohen told employees that they would work only 40 hours a week under the Union. On the same day Cohen told employee Charles Blow that the employees had "better forget" this "union business," and that he should "call up the Union man and tell him we dropped it." He then queried Blow as to "who else was in it." 2 Not only did Jasper Blow not deny so Informing his son, but the truth of his state- ment finds support in the uncontradicted testimony of Howard Blow, Jasper 's brother, that on June 16 Mayer Cohen told him "he knew all the meetings that took place and everybody that was there." 81n passing, the Trial Examiner notes, as having relevant bearing upon credibility of the Respondent's entire case, documentary evidence placed in evidence by the Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit No 4. It is an envelope containing 15 slips of thin paper, 4 of them bearing a "yes," 11 of them a "no." Harrington answered in the affirmative when asked by the Respondent's counsel : "They are the votes taken that day?" There is also in evidence, by stipulation of the parties , a list of all employees at both locations on June 9. There is evidence of one additional hiring between that date and June 13 The list plus the 1 new employee establishes that on June 13 (omitting the names of Olivia Cruickshank and Theresa Francis, discharged on June 9 ) there were only 12 employees at the warehouse . Had 12 employees cast 15 ballots at a Board-conducted election, it Is reasonable to suppose that some party would have questioned its mathematical validity. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Conclusions 1. The discharges a. * Olivia Cruickshank and Theresa Francis In summary, the above findings as to relevant events immediately preceding the termination of the employment of these two employees, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, fully sustain General Counsel's allegation that the purpose of the Respondent's action was to discourage union membership. Evidence offered by the Respondent is contradictory, confused, and incredible. Counsel for the Respondent insisted that there be received in evidence his "answer to charge," in which it is claimed that Olivia Cruickshank was "discharged." And the document attached to her timecard on June 9, signed by Mayer Cohen, states: "After today your services will no longer be required." Yet as a witness Harrington claimed that both Cruickshank and Francis were merely laid off temporarily because "work was slack." As noted in footnote 2 above, Harrington's credibility is severely diminished by her testimony that she delivered 15 votes to Cohen, although other evidence shows there were but 12 employees. Her claim that "work was slack" is without documentary support. It is refuted by the fact that a new employee was hired as a ",ticket girl" the next working day and Theresa Francis was recalled later the same week .4 In short, the Trial Examiner finds no merit in Harrington's claims. On the con- trary, he concludes and finds that both girls were summarily discharged on June 9, 1961, upon Cohen's orders (as Harrington admitted) after she had reported to him their "guilty looks" and that such unlawful dismissals constituted interference, restraint, and coercion. b. John Cruickshank Equally incredible is the clearly exaggerated testimony of James McKinstry as to why he suddenly discharged John Cruickshank on June 13. His claim that he "re- peatedly" warned the employee of 12 years' experience about "errors" on "order sheets" is wholly unsupported by any documentary evidence. He cited no specific error, and provided no more than a speculative indication of the "nature" of the claimed mistakes in a narrative replete with "ifs." McKinstry's testimony is not, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, to be relied upon. He declared, "I had no inkling of the union" at the time of Cruickshank's dis- charge. Yet according to Harrington's testimony McKinstry transmitted to her Cohen's instructions to poll the warehouse employees, and it is undisputed that both McKinstry and Harrington cast votes themselves and that both took the ballots to Cohen-before Cruickshank was discharged. Finally, McKinstry's claim that Cruick- shank was fired for errors or other misconduct is inconsistent with the notice of dis- missal, signed by Cohen, which reads: "Your services will no longer be required after today due to lack of work." Contrary to the Respondent's contention, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that McKinstry and Cohen were well aware of Cruickshank's union activity and that they discharged him for that reason, and to discourage union membership. This unlawful discrimination constituted interference, restraint, and coercion in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 2. The refusal to bargain The complaint alleges and the Trial Examiner finds that a unit of the Respondent's employees appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining consists of the following: All employees of the Respondent , including drivers, warehousemen , checkers, ,and ticket girls at its two Burlington plants, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Although the answer denied the allegation as to the appropriate unit, the Respond- ent offered no evidence as to what unit, if any, it considered appropriate, or as to why it objected to the unit alleged by General Counsel. Credible evidence adduced by General Counsel establishes that, because of interchange of employees between the two locations, both should be included in the same unit. As to the ticket girls, uncontradicted testimony places them in the category of plant, and not office, clericals. They handle, ticket, and label boxes of merchandise for delivery by truckmen. 4 The new hire is established by Harrington's affidavit placed in evidence by the Re- spondent. It states that this new employee "came to work on June 12 , 1961, for the first time." RIVERSIDE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS 693 As noted above, at the hearing General Counsel placed in evidence, without challenge by the Respondent as to their authenticity, 13 authorization cards signed on or before June 9, 1961, by employees appearing on the payroll of that date, totaling 18. It is thus clear, and found, that on June 9 the Union was the majority and exclusive representative of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit. The Union's demand for recognition upon claim of majority representation has been described above. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that on this date, June 9, and at all times thereafter the Respondent refused and has continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, by the following conduct: (1) Cohen's declaration to Raymond on June 9 to the effect that he would not recognize the majority claim unless and until he had conducted his own poll of employees. ,(2) Cohen's instructions to supervisors to conduct a poll and the taking of the poll by Harrington. (3) The discriminatory and unlawful discharges of John and Olivia Cruickshank and Theresa Francis. (4) The several threats, heretofore described, of economic reprisals, plainly designed to dissipate the Union's majority status and to deprive employees of their statutory privilege to select their own bargaining agent. 3. Other interference, restraint, and coercion The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the following conduct of man- agement and supervisors, above set forth more fully, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act: (1) Harrington's interrogation of ticket girls on June 9; (2) Cohen's warning to Charles Blow on the same day not to "stick his neck out"; (3) Jasper Blow's statement to employees that Cohen knew who attended, and what was said, at a union meeting, thereby implying management surveillance; (4) Harrington's threat to employees that they would be deprived of current privileges if the Union came in; (5) Harrington's polling of employees at the warehouse; (6) the warning by Blow and Cohen that work and hours would be reduced if the Union came in; and (7) Cohen's interrogation of Charles Blow as to who had signed union cards. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among 'the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Charging Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit described herein, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. It appears from the record that since her discharge on June 9,• 1961, Theresa Francis has been reinstated to her former position, but that Olivia Cruickshank has been given work only on occasion and has not been returned to her former full-time position. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent offer John and Olivia Cruickshank immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and Theresa Francis whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages, absent the discrimination, from the date of discharge to the•date of offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings during said period and in a manner consistent with Board policy, set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett Lianber Company, 8 NLRB 440. Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com- mission in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct, the pre- ventive purposes of the Act may be ,thwarted unless the recommendations are coex- tensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will be 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 597, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employees , thereby dis- couraging membership in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. All employees of the Respondent including drivers, warehousemen , checkers, and ticket girls at its two Burlington plants, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. On June 9, 1961, and at all times since that date , the above-named labor organization has been and now is the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on June 9, 1961 , and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a),(5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of 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. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Crompton-Shenandoah Company, Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers of America and Fibre Workers Associated, Party to the Contract. Case No. 5-CA-1951. January 30, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on June 28, 1961, by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called District 50, against Crompton-Shenandoah Company, Inc., herein called Re- spondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region issued a complaint dated August 23, 1961, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the complaint, charge, and notice of hearing were served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party. On August 25, 1961, the Respondent filed both an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and a motion for a more particular statement with respect to certain allegations of the complaint. On August 28, 1961, the General Counsel filed a bill of particulars. 135 NLRB No. 79.