Wallace Co., Inc., 416 (1969)

Wallace Company, Inc. and International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local ,Union 111. Case 23-CA-3058

February 12, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND ZAGORIA

On October 29, 1968, Trial Examiner Horace A.

Ruckel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.

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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations2 of the Trial Examiner.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.

'While Trial Examiner's findings with respect to the poll of employees do not so state, we note that the record establishes that the poll substantially satisfied all of the preconditions to lawful polling laid down in Strucksnes Construction Co, Inc., 165 NLRB No. 102, including the giving of assurances to employees that their indication of preference would not prevoke any reprisals.

'In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopts pro forma the Trial Examiner's recommendation that that portion of the complaint relating to a wage increase extended to Marvin Dureseau be dismissed TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

HORACE A. RUCKEL,' Trial Examiner: This case comes before me upon a complaint of unfair labor practices issued August 9, 1968, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the Board's Regional Director for Region 23 (Houston, Texas), against Wallace Company, Inc , herein called the Respondent, based upon a charge filed on June 21, 1968, by International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO,

Local Union 111, herein called the Union.

Pursuant to notice, I conducted a hearing on September 12, 1968, at Houston, Texas, at which the parties were represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived oral argument. Subsequently they filed timely briefs.

The complaint alleges that Respondent failed to bargain in good faith with the Union as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by (1) conducting a poll of the employees in the unit on about May 7, 1968, and (2) by granting a wage increase to an employee without consultation with the Union. This is the sole issue in the case.

Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the followingFINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Wallace Company, Inc., is a Texas corporation having its principal office and place of business in Houston,

   Texas, where it is engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of refinery, industrial and pipeline supplies.

   During the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint the Respondent purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Texas.

   During the same period Respondent made sales in excess of $50,000 to customers who in turn sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside Texas.

   The complaint alleges, and the Respondent's answer admits, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

   2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting employees of the Respondent to membership.

   3. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain 1. The appropriate unit and the Union's certification as bargaining agent The Regional Director for Region 23, pursuant to an election conducted on October 6, 1966, on October 14 certified the Union as the collective-bargaining agent of its approximately 32...