Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc.

MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED 5 Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL- CIO, Beer Salesmen of the Sabine District, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization. 0. DEL PAPA AND SONS, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Fed- eral Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, 77002, Telephone No. Capitol 8-0611, Extension 271, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated and International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA- 2W. June 24, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1963, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr 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 attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, for the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), 143 NLRB No. 4. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued a complaint against Manning, Maxwell & Moore , Incorporated , herein called the Respondent, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Alexandria, Louisiana, on April 16, 1963, before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr.' All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated, is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of valves and related products. The sole plant involved in this proceeding is located in Alexandria, Louisiana. During the 12 months preceding the hearing herein, Respondent purchased supplies and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped directly to said plant from points and places located outside the State of Louisiana. The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is and has been engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Pursuant to an agreement for a consent election executed on November 15, 1962, by the Respondent, the Union and the Acting Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,2 a representation election was conducted on December 7, 1962, in the unit described in the Recommended Order below. The tally of ballots, which was served upon all the parties, reflect that out of approximately 397 eligible voters, 203 votes were cast for the Union and 177 votes were cast against the Union. On December 13, 1962, the Respondent filed objections to the election. Following an investigation of the objections, the Acting Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region on February 8, 1963, issued a report on objections to election which over- ruled the Respondent's objections and included a certification of representative, the latter certifying that the Union had been designated and selected by a majority of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit as their representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining. By letter dated February 15, 1963, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate and asked for a meeting for this purpose 3 By letter dated February 20, 1963, Respondent's works manager notified the Union that Respondent would not meet and bargain with it on the ground that the Respondent did not believe that the election was representative of the free choice of its employees and that the Respondent did not agree with the certification issued by the National Labor Relations Board. The basis for the instant proceeding arises from Respond- ent's stated purpose to test the validity of the said certification. No testimony was taken at the hearing in the instant proceeding, there being no contention by the Respondent that it had newly discovered evidence or evidence which i It is noted that although the transcript contains numerous errors in reflecting dis- cussions between the Trial Examiner and respective counsel for the parties, the merits of the case are not affected thereby. Thus, the issues in this case were framed by a written stipulation of the parties which was copied into the record 2 The agreement for consent election provides, inter alia, that the determination of the Regional Director Is to be final and binding upon any question, including questions as to the eligibility of voters raised by any party relating in any manner to the election The agreement further provides that the method of Investigation of objections and challenge'., Including the question whether a hearing should be held, is to be determined by the Regional Director whose decision is to be final and binding 3 On February 20, 1963, a representative of the Union telephoned a representative of the Respondent and again requested a meeting to commence negotiations. MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED 7 -was not available to it at the representation stage. As to the issue now being raised by the Respondent, it is well settled that the Trial Examiner is bound by the Board's ruling in the representation proceeding and the ensuing certification.4 On the basis thereof, it is found and concluded that the Union was duly designated as collective- bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in the unit, and, in accordance with the certification, is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit in question within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. Hence, by refusing to bargain with the Union so certified, I find that the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5), and, derivatively, of Section 8(a) (1) thereof. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in this and the representa- tion proceeding, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated, its agents, officers, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the duly certified exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following unit: All production and maintenance employees of Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated, in its Alexandria, Louisiana, plant, excluding office clerical employees, foremen, leadmen, and guards and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to bargain collectively through said Union, or any other labor organization of their own choosing. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the said certified Union as the ex- clusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed contract. (b) Post at its plant in Alexandria, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days of the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 6 * Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B , 313 U.S 146, 157-158; N.L R R v West Kentucky Coal Company, 152 F. 2d 198, 200-201 (CA. 6), cert. denied 328 U S. 866; Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc., 139 NLRB 413. It is also established Board policy that the Regional Director's determination in consent elections of the character here involved is final, in the absence of fraud, misconduct, or gross mistake, even though the Board might have reached a different conclusion in the first instance. General Tube Company, 141 NLRB 441; Howard Rip pee, et al, d/b/a Pacific Multiforms Company, 138 NLRB 796 At the hearing the Respondent did not contend the commission of any fraud, misconduct, or gross mistake on the part of the Regional Director, nor is there anything in the record of the representation proceeding, which was incorporated with this case, to indicate anything of such nature. 5In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Deci- sion and Order." 6In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." $ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order 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 bargain collectively, upon request, with International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below concerning wages,. rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and,_ if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed agreement. The bar- gaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees of Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Incorporated, in its Alexandria, Louisiana, plant, excluding office` clerical employees, foremen, leadmen, and guards and all other supervisofs as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively as aforesaid, nor will we, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to bargain collectively through the said Union or any other labor organization of their own choosing. MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED, Employer. Dated------------------- By--------- ---------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other materials. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70113, Telephone No. 529-2411 , if they have any question concerning this . notice or com- pliance with its provisions. Northern Stevedoring & Handling Corp., Rothschild Alaska Stevedoring Company, Inc., Alaska Freight Lines, Inc. and International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 1-82, and International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union and Bernard Hulm. Cases Nos. 19-CA-1441 and 19-CB- 464. June 24, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 15, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, Northern Stevedoring & Handling Corp., herein called Northern; Rothschild Alaska Stevedoring, Inc., herein called Rothschild; Alaska Freight Lines, Inc., herein called Alaska Freight; International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 1-82, herein called Local 1-82; and International Longshoremen's & Ware- housemen's Union, herein called ILWU, had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint, and recommend- ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, both the General Counsel and the Respondent Rothschild filed exceptions to the Intermediate 143 NLRB No. 8.