Acme Mattress Company, Inc. And Floyd A. Lrttleton, An Individual, 1010 (1950)

Summary

---

Textile Workers Union Of America, Cio And Local 169, Textile Workers Union Of America, Cio And Floyd A. Littleton, An Individual

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Acme Mattress Company, Inc. And Floyd A. Lrttleton, An Individual, 1010 (1950)

In the Matter of ACME MATTRESS COMPANY, INC. and FLOYD A. LrTTLETON, AN INDIVIDUAL In the Matter of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO and LOCAL 169, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO and FLOYD A. LITTLETON, AN INDIVIDUAL Cases Nos. 35-CA-66 and 35-CB-12.-Decided October 18, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On April 13, 1950, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent 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 therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent Company, the Respondent Unions, and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Decision and Order.

1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that, in discharging Littleton at the insistence of Cline and the negotiating committee of the Respondent Local, the Respondent Employer violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. We also agree that the Respondent Unions caused the Respondent Employer to discharge Littleton, in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A). It is clear that the Respondent Unions made agreement by the Respondent Employer to discharge Littleton a, condition precedent to the execution of a contract and the termination of the strike. Accordingly, we find without merit the Respondent Unions' contention that, as Littleton's employment 1As the record and the exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the Respondent Unions' request for oral argument is hereby denied.

91 NLRB No. 169.

1010 1011 was not actually terminated until after the end of the strike and the execution of a contract containing a no-strike clause, such termination must be regarded either as voluntary or at the instance of the Respondent Employer.

We also reject the contention of the Respondent Unions that they are not responsible for the actions of Cline and the negotiating committee, in procuring Littleton's discharge. As more fully set forth by the Trial Examiner, when Cline. procured Littleton's discharge, he was acting, at least in part, as spokesman for the negotiating committee of the Respondent Local; moreover, at no time did the negotiating committee, which was present throughout the negotiations, disassociate itself from Cline's actions. We find, accordingly, that the negotiating committee is responsible for Cline's actions in procuring Littleton's discharge. Although the negotiating committee was not specifically authorized by the Respondent Local to procure Littleton's discharge, we find that, in procuring his discharge, the negotiating committee was acting within the scope of its apparent authority to set the terms and conditions upon which the Respondent Local would execute the contract and terminate the strike. We find, therefore, that the Respondent Local is responsible for the acts which caused Littleton's discharge.2 With respect to the responsibility of the Respondent International,

Cline had for a number of years participated in negotiations with the Respondent Employer and had executed the contracts resulting therefrom, on be...

See the full content of this document

---