Supreme Bedding and Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc., 1616 (1951)

Extract

---

Supreme Bedding and Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc., 1616 (1951)

SUPREME BEDDING AND FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC..

and UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,

AFL. Case No. 15-CA-210. April 23, 1951

Decision and Order On November 20, 1950, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 1 has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings 2 and conclusions of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications set forth below, but overrules the Trial Examiner's conclusions and recommendations.

1. We disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the testimony of employee Herbert E. Antley discloses no conduct by the Respondent which is violative of the Act. Antley testified, without refutation, that on July 12, 1949, Superintendent Homan interrogated him as to his union views, and that on the following day, after the Respondent's employees had held their union meeting at the Labor Temple, Homan remarked to him, 'Herb, I didn't think you was going i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].

2 The Trial Examiner concluded that it is Improbable that Homan , the Respondent's superintendent , inquired of employee Rube B Thorne just after the latter was laid off, 'Rube, what advantage do you think the Union will be to you here?' In forming this conclusion the Trial Examiner appears to have relied upon ( a) his preliminary finding that Thorne' s layoff was not discriminatory and (b ) his opinion that Homan is 'alert,' 'intelligent ,' has 'considerable knowledge of law,' and that a person with such 'perspicacity' would not likely have so 'needlessly disclosed the Respondent 's motivation' [ i. e., had Thorne' s layoff been discriminatory ]. We disavow the foregoing reasoning.

The Board does not consider the existence of independent 8 (a) (1) interrogation dependent upon a finding of 8 (a ) ( 3) discrimination, involving the employee to whom the interrogation allegedly was directed. We, moreover, do not subscribe to the Trial Examiner's generalization that persons with Homan's attributes would be more or less likely to disclose motivation for unlawful conduct. In any event , the record does not establish that Homan is an expert in labor law, but, on the contrary , shows that by his own admission his knowledge of labor law and rights under the Act was 'very hazy.' The Trial Examiner also concluded that the foregoing interrogation , even if made, was only an isolated incident and, hence , not coercive . We disagree, in view of our other findings of unlawful conduct herein, that this was an isolated incident . We find it unnecessary, however, because of our other 8 (a) (1) findings herein, to make a factual determination as to this incident, and shall not make a finding of unlawful conduct based thereon.

93 NLRB No. 270.

SUPREME BEDDING AND FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO., INC.1617 to vote for the union.' We find that such interrogation and comment by Homan are per se violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.,' 2. The Trial Examiner found that employee Rube B. Thorne was laid off, as contended by the Respondent, for economic ...

See the full content of this document

---