Pacific Plastic & Mfg. Co., Inc. And United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers Of America, C. I. O. And Independent Plastic Workers Union, 52 (1946)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Pacific Plastic & Mfg. Co., Inc. And United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers Of America, C. I. O. And Independent Plastic Workers Union, 52 (1946)
In the Matter of PACIFIC PLASTIC & MFG. Co., INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. and INDEPENDENT PLASTIC WORKERS UNION Case No. 21-C-2421.-Decided on May 17, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On August 13, 1945, the Trial Examiner 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it is alleged that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Bess Snyder and Frieda Underdown.1 Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. In its exceptions, among other things, the respondent stated that since the date of the hearing, the Independent Plastic Workers Union, which we, like the Trial Examiner, find has been unlawfully supported and dominated by the respondent, had been dissolved, and that a majority of the respondent's employees had joined a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The respondent moved the Board to reopen the record and to admit proof of this allegation, and further requested that, if the allegation be proved, the Board direct an election among its employees to determine whether they desire to be represented by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
C. I. O., herein called the Union, or by the American Federation of Labor. For reasons given in our Supplemental Decision in Matter of 1 Inasmuch as neither the Union nor counsel for the Board filed exceptions, we shall adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation as to Snyder and Underdown without setting forth in detail the evidence with respect to the termination of their employment. 52 Karp Metal Products Co., Inc., denied.2 On April 1, 1946, Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 3151, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L., filed with the Board a petition to intervene in the proceeding and to participate in oral argument before the Board, alleging that since the hearing herein, the respondent had changed its business from the manufacture of aircraft parts to the manufacture of furniture parts, and that the A. F. of L. now represents a majority of the employees of the respondent. On April 4, 1946, the Board granted the A. F.of L.'s petition to argue orally before the Board in Washington, D. C.On April 9, 1946, the Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument in which the respondent, the Union, and the A. F. of L. participated.At the oral argument, the respondent and the A. F. of L. contended that, although the respondent may have unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the respondent be required to bargain with the Union was nevertheless inappropriate because the nature of the respondent's business had changed since the date of the hearing. Nothing in the record or in the oral argument indicates that the respondent's present employees require different skills from those exercised by persons employed by the respondent at the time of the respondent's refusal to bargain, or that there has been a substantial change in personnel attributable to the respondent's reconversion to peacetime production.3 Consequently, we reject the contention referred to.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. Except as hereinafter noted, the rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, petitions and briefs, the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except insofar as they are herinafter reversed or modified:(1) At the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to strike from the complaint, without prejudice, allegations of discriminatory discharge as 2 The Union's loss of members and its failure to attract new members from among new employees is directly traceable to the respondent's failure to bargain with the Union, coercive statements of its supervisors, direct pressure from supervisors upon union members to disavow their membership, and discharge of union leaders for their union activities. Affiliation with the A. F. of L. by the respordent's employees, as alleged by the respondent and the A. F'. of L., is also a natural consequence of the respondent's unfair labor practices, since employees who desire collective bargaining, when deprived of representation by a union of their choice, generally turn to a second choice acceptable to the employer.SA comparison between the respondent's pay roll of May through August 1944, the period of the unfair labor practices, and the respondent's pa...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
