The Hoover Company And L. J. Plastow, An Individual, For And On Behalf Of Lynn J. Plastow, Marvin A. Climes, John Connelly, Alvin B. Day, Albert Demeusey, Vincent Renner, Eugene J. Roberts, Edward Watson, Charles Bucher, Virgil Anderson, Kay Elliott, And Orin Brick, 1614 (1950)

Extract

---

The Hoover Company And L. J. Plastow, An Individual, For And On Behalf Of Lynn J. Plastow, Marvin A. Climes, John Connelly, Alvin B. Day, Albert Demeusey, Vincent Renner, Eugene J. Roberts, Edward Watson, Charles Bucher, Virgil Anderson, Kay Elliott, And Orin Brick, 1614 (1950)

In the Matter of THE HOOVER COMPANY and L. J. PLASTOW, AN INDIVIDUAL, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF LYNN J. PLASTOW, MARVIN A. CLIMES,

JOHN CONNELLY, ALVIN B. DAY, ALBERT DEMEUSEY, VINCENT RENNER, EUGENE J. ROBERTS, EDWARD WATSON, CHARLES BUCHER, VIRGIL ANDERSON, KAY ELLIOTT, AND ORIN BRICK Case No. 8-CA-109.-Decided August 1, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On August 30, 1949, Trial Examiner Josef L. Hektoen 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs;, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of his exceptions and of the remainder of the Intermediate Report; and the Complainants filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.

On April 13, 1950, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,

D. C., in which the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Complainants participated.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report the exceptions and briefs, the contentions advanced at the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findifigs, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.

SThe Respondent's motions for leave to file a reply brief and a supplemental memorandum are hereby granted. The reply brief and the supplemental memorandum submitted with the motions have been considered by the Board.

90 NLRB No. 201.

1614 The Boycott As set forth in the Intermediate Report, for a number of years prior to 1948, the Respondent and United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, hereafter called the UE, and the UE's Local 709, hereafter together called the Union, were parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements covering the Respondent's employees. Upon the expiration, in April 1948, of their most recent contract, the Respondent, for reasons here immaterial,2 withdrew its recognition from the Union and refused to continue the bargaining relationship. As a countermeasure, the Union, on June 10, struck the Respondent's plant.

On July 13, while the strike continued, and in furtherance of its purposes, Local 709 voted to institute a consumer boycott of the Respondent's products. Thereafter, commencing on July 20, the Union sent 'teams' of striking employees to get in touch with a number of UE local unions and districts in the eastern portion of the United States. Instructed not to request either a boycott or the picketing of the Respondent's dealers and suppliers,3 the mission of such 'teams' was to publicize and urge support for the boycott voted on July 13, and to seek financial aid for the striking employees. By July 29 all the 'teams' had returned to North Canton, Ohio, the site of the Respondent's plant.

The next day, July 30, the membership of Local 709 voted to abandon the strike, and, on August 2, most of the striking employees returned to work. The record reveals no overt action in support of the boycott by the Union after August 2.

The Complainants were members of the executive board of Local 709. When they, together with other strikers, returned to work on August 2, the Respondent suspended them from their employment.

According to the statements made by the Respondent at that time, 2 The Respondent withdrew its recognition because the Union had not complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. No contention has been ...

See the full content of this document

---