Piedmont Wood Products Co., Inc.

PIEDMONT WOOD PRODUCTS CO., INC. 151 WE WILL NOT promise any employees wage increase if they refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, activities, or desires. WE WILL NOT seek to induce our employees to withdraw from the Union in order to undermine or destroy the majority status of the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor orga- nizations, to join or assist Metal Processors' Union, Local No. 16, International Union of Doll & Toy Workers of the U.S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL, upon the request of Metal Processors' Union, Local No. 16, Inter- national Union of Doll & Toy Workers of the U S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, bargain collectively with the said Union with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, we will embody the terms of such agreement in an appropriate contract. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by agreements in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. UNIVERSAL METAL FINISHING, A DIVISION OF C. A. ROBERTS CO., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive clays from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. 828-7572. Piedmont Wood Products Co., Inc. and International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-6993. December 17, 1965 DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 'Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Harry D. Camp of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer filed t brief. 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 Brown and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : Piedmont Wood Products Co., Inc., hereinafter called the Employer, is a Mississippi corporation doing business only in Detroit, Michigan, where it establishes its plant in order to be closer to its source of supply and its customers. The Employer is engaged in the business of manu- facturing and selling box spring bedframes made from Canadian 156 NLRB No. 27. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spruce. During the past 12 months the Employer has purchased less than $38,000 worth of goods and services, all from within the State of Michigan, and has had gross sales of not more than $40,000. Thus, on the basis of either inflow or outflow, the Employer has failed to meet the $50,000 jurisdictional standards imposed by the Board with regard to nonretail establishments. F. & F. Wood Manufacturing Company, Inc., hereinafter called F. & F., is also a Mississippi corporation and is engaged in Mississippi in the business of cutting southern hardwood into wood products of specified size for sale to toy and television cabinet manufacturers. F. & F., however, annually furnishes approximately $270,000 worth of goods and services to customers outside the State of Mississippi. Is is clear, therefore, that F. & F.'s operation brings it within the commerce definition of the Act and within the Board's discretionary standards for assertion of jurisdiction. At the hearing, inquiries were made as to the relationship between the Employer and F. & F. for the purpose of determining whether the two corporations. are integrated enterprises so as to constitute a single employer for the jurisdictional purposes of the Act. The Employer contends that no single employer relationship exists and that the Board, therefore, should not assert jurisdiction over it. Ned A. Feltenstein is president and his wife is vice president of F. & F. and of the Employer, and together, they own virtually all of the stock in both corporations. Both corporations also have a common secretary. Feltenstein does some purchasing of supplies for both enterprises and also supplied the Employer with some blank F. & F. employment application forms which the Employer used in initially hiring some of its employees. Beyond these facts, the only connection between the Employer and F. & F. consist of Feltenstein's activities in behalf of the Employer. Thus, Feltenstein services the Employer's customers. The record also shows that although Feltenstein instructed the Employer's manager to pay local area wage rates and not be a "wage cutter," and that he is aware of the starting wage rate, Felten- stein neither determines nor knows the amount of wages that are paid to the Employer's employees from funds kept in a Detroit bank. Felt- enstein's only other connection with the Employer's wages consists of signing and supplying the Employer's manager with large numbers of payroll checks which are not made out either as to payee or amount. The Employer's manager thereafter completes these checks in accord- ance with a wage scale determined by the manager, countersigns the checks, and uses them for as long as his supply holds out, at which time the procedure is repeated. It is undisputed that a shutdown at either plant would not affect the other, that there is no interchange of operations, no interchange of employees or equipment, no common payroll, no common source of DIVINCENTI BROTHERS, INC. 153 supply, and no common products or customers. It is also undisputed that the Employer's manager actively operates the establishment, pur- chases supplies, establishes wage rates, and hires and discharges employees, independently of Feltenstein and F. & F. In addition, the record does not establish the existence of common labor policies, prac- tices, or benefits. Upon consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that the Employer and F. & F. are not integrated enterprises and do not constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act and that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] DiVincenti Brothers, Inc. and United Packinghouse, Food & Al- lied Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-P3610. December 17, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On October 13, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, as hereinafter modified.' THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, the ' We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's Decision: the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union subsequent to December 8, 1965, should read January 8, 1965; Williams, rather than Davis, credibly testified as to Sam DiVincenti 's remarks about a week before the strike concerning Respondent 's reaction to union activity ; and the Respondent discharged five, rather than six, employees on February 22, 1965. 156 NLRB No. 22.