Extract
Pryne & Co., Inc., 447 (1962)
PRYNE & COMPANY, INC 447 employees Boettiger, Kendall, Crawford, Hutches, Martinez, and Clark.
Nor do we find merit in the Employer's contention that one employee, Kenneth Carter, who was permitted to vote an unchallenged ballot, should have been excluded on the ground that he also only occasionally works as a pressman. This is in the nature of a post-election challenge and, therefore, will not be considered by the Board. 4Finally, we deny the Employer's request for reconsideration of the unit finding. This request is not only untimely,' but also presents no matters which warrant altering our prior determination herein.As a majority of the eligible employees voting cast their ballots for the Petitioner, we shall certify that labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit.[The Board certified Los Angeles Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 78, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL, as-the designated collective-bargaining representative of all letterpressmen and assistants at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.4 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 91 NLRB 955, 963; N.L. R. B. v A. J. Tower Company, 329 U S 324.s William R Whittaker Co , Ltd, 94 NLRB 1151,1152.PRYNE & COMPANY, INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UE) LOCAL 1421.Case No. 21 -CA-1146. June 9, 1953 DECISION AND ORDEROn May 9, 1952, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged 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, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. No exceptions were filed by the Intervenor Union' or by the General Counsel.1 The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1710, AFL, intervened at the hearing 105 NLRB No. 51The Board2 has reviewed the rulings made by 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 brief, and entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications:1. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent on and after May 17, 1951, failed to bargain in good faith with the charging Union, Local 1421 of the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) 3 thereby violating Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. In so finding, we rely solely on the following considerations:The Respondent, except for a brief period in 1950, had unbroken contractual relations with the charging Union from 1940 to June 30, 1951. The last of these contracts ran from September 1, 1950, to June 30, 1951. There were no strikes or other work stoppages during this period. Both before and during the course of the 1951 contract negotiations, as found by the Trial Examiner, the Respondent by statements to employees made it clear that it had determined (1) not to consummate any agreement with the Local and (2) actively to assist IBEW 4 to displace the Local as the representative of the employees.During the Local's unsuccessful negotiations with the Respondent in the first few months of 1951 for a wage increase under the wage reopening clause of the September 1950 contract between the parties, the Respondent's advertising and sales promotion manager, Cabana, told an employee Royalty) that the Respondent would be 'very glad to give the employees] a raise of ten or fifteen cents an hour if the IBEW was in. . . .'s At the time this statement was made, the Respondent was firmly resisting the Local's demand for a 15-cent an hour increase.About the same time, Cabana told employee Freeman, as found by the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent did not 'want the UE in here . . . they won't be in existence much longer.' On 6 or 8 other occasions Cabana told Freeman he belonged to the wrong union. Thereafter, on March 21, 1951, the Respondent, after flatly rejecting the Local's demand for a 15-cent wage increase , announced to the Local and the employees that 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson] 3 1'he Local is also referred to herein and in the Intermediate Report as 'UE' 41BEW had since 1946 competed unsuccessfully with the Local for the right to represent Respondent's employees The R...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
