Hilgartner Marble Company And International Association Of Marble, Slate, And Stone Polishers, Rubbers; And Sawyers, Tile And Marble Setters, Helpers, Mosaic And Terrazzo Workers Helpers, Local No. 121 Of Baltimore, Maryland, 1200 (1939)

In the Matter of HILGARTNER MARBLE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL AsSOCIATION OF MARBLE, SLATE, AND STONE POLISHERS, RUBBERS;

AND SAWYERS, TILE AND MARBLE SETTERS, HELPERS, MOSAIC AND TERRAZZO WORKERS HELPERS, LOCAL NO. 121 OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Case No. C-747.-Decided July 27, 1939 Stone Processing and Finishing Industry--Interference, Restraint, ain Coercion: anti-union statements of supervisory employees; threats of shutdown because of membership and activities in the Union-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and administration;

address by respondent's president as a stimulus for the organization of the company-dominated union; use of respondent's premises for organizational meeting of company-dominated union; participation by supervisory employees in organizing the company-dominated union; absence of bargaining between the company-dominated union and the respondent; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination: charges of discriminatory lay-offs of disproportionate number of union employees not sustained, dismissed.

Mr. Gerhard P. Van Arkel and Mr. Robert W. Knadler, for the Board.

Mr. Frederick J. Singley and Mr. Frederic/ J. Singley, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., for the respondent.

Mr. Henry H. Freeman, of Baltimore, Md., for the Union.

Mr. Ralph Winkler, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Association of Marble, Slate, and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters, Helpers, Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, Local Union No. 121 of Baltimore, Maryland,:

herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Bennet F. Schauffler, Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint dated April 4, 1938, against Hilgartner Marble Company of Baltimore 1Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Marble Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers Local Union 121 of Baltimore, Maryland, and amended at the hearing.

1200 1201 City, Baltimore, Maryland, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.

The complaint alleged in substance that about September 17, 1937, the respondent assisted and sponsored the formation and has since dominated the administration of Hilgartner Marble Company Employees' Association, herein called the Association, and that in other ways it prevented its employees from joining a labor organization of their own choosing. On April 14, 1938, the respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.

Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Baltimore, Maryland, on April 18 and 19, 1938, before Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Upon second amended charges filed by the Union, and on motion of counsel for the Board made at the beginning of the hearing, the complaint was amended to include allegations that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.2 Counsel for the respondent stated at that time that he had no objection to proceeding with the matters covered by the amended complaint.3 Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

On July 7, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 2The amendment alleged that the respondent terminated the employment of and has since refused to employ the following employees because of their union affiliation: William Menke, Sr., William Menke, Jr., Bernhard Menke, William Kenny, Joseph Helfrich, William Brown, George Martin, Charles Kimball, John Thompson, James Harge, Robert Jolley,

Daniel Fletcher, Colonel Gross, Louis Gross, George Lenox, William Polughman, Eugene Gross, Meredith Dates, and Moses Howell.

3 Counsel for the respondent requested additional time, however, for the filing of an amended answer. This was granted by the Trial Examiner, and after the hearing the respondent filed a 'Motion Ne Recipiatur' and an amended answer. Pursuant to notice issued by the Trial Examiner the hearing was reopened on June 13, 1938, at Baltimore,

Maryland, to allow the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence regarding the allegations in the amended complaint. Although notified, the respondent made no appearance at the reopened hearing.

8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but that it had not committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner also denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint which had been made at the conclusion of the Board's case, and upon which he had reserved ruling. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, that it withdraw recognition from the Association as the bargaining representative of its employees, and that it disestablish the Association as such representative. He further recommended that the allegations in the complaint with respect to the discriminatory discharges be dismissed.

Thereafter, the respondent filed a brief and exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice duly served on the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held on January 26, 1939, before the Board, in Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel and the Union by a representative and both participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and, save as consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds no merit in them.

Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Hilgartner Marble Company of Baltimore City, a Maryland corporation, is engaged in the business of sawing, cutting, and polishing block marble at Baltimore, Maryland. The respondent receives from points outside the State of Maryland approximately 50 per cent of the raw materials used in its business operations. Approximately 80 per cent of the marble shaped and polished by the respondent is installed in construction work outside the State of Maryland. The respondent's gross income for the calendar year 1937 was approximately $480,000.

2. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Marble, Slate, and Stone Polishers,

   Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters, Helpers, Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, Local Union No. 121 of Baltimore, Maryland, is a labor organization affiliated with the International Building Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor. The Union admits to membership the shop employees of the respondent.

   The precise limits of its jurisdiction do not appear in the record.

   Hilgartner Marble Company Employees' Association is an unaffiliated labor organization. It admits to membership all shop employees of the respondent.

   1203 III. THE...