Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, 1264 (1958)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, 1264 (1958)
services for their respective employers where an object thereof is (1) to force or require any employer or person to cease doing business with District Distributors, Incorporated, or (2) to force District Distributors, Incorporated, to recognize the undersigned union as the representative of its employees, unless and until certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LocAL 639,INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,Labor Organization.Dated---------------- By------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO and Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated. Cases Nos. 39-CC-44 and 39-CB-237. February 4, 1959 DECISION AND ORDEROn July 22, 1958, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and recommending that the consolidated complaints be dismissed in their 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, and the Respondent Union filed a brief in support of Intermediate Report.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made 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, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' 1 The Board does not, however, adopt the portion of the Intermediate Report in which the Trial Examiner found that a union's filing of a petition for representation with the Board is 'not tantamount to a demand for recognition .' We adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the picketing at the Houston store did not violate Section 8 ( b) (1) (A) because its purpose was to enlist customer support for the Union 's economic strike against the Employer at the other stores where the Union was the majority bargaining representative. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass upon his alternate finding that the picketing was for organizational purposes and was therefore outside the proscriptive ambit of that section.122 NLRB No. 151.RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO 1265 [The Board di...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
