Fun Striders, Inc., 520 (1980)

Docket Number:31-CA-08336


Fun Striders, Inc. anid Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers and Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case 31CA-8336


BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MF.MHBIRS JENKINS AND PENF I.IO On December 31, 1979, Administrative Law Judge James S. Jenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief answering Respondent's exceptions and in support of his cross-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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions, briefs, and motions' and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 2 ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,

Fun Striders, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified:

Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c):

Respondent filed with the Board a motion foir Iea;e o file a menlOrandum of additional authority based on a copy of all Advice Memoraldum from Ihe General Counsel's Office pertaining to Somerver Kiiltgi,,

Mill., Case 4-RC-10295 (September 24, 1979). on which it places precedential value The General Couisel filed an oppositiln to Respondent's motion, and, in Ihe allernative, moved for special leave to file a reslponse if Respondent's motlion is granted We hereby grant Responldenl's moltiln to file a memorandum of additional authorily. deny the General Counsel's motion in oppposiion Io Respondent's motion, arnd grant the General Counsel's motion to file a response Contrary lo Respondent, an 'Advice Memoirandunm' frnom the Gieneral Counsel is nol precedenlial authority hibinding upon(he oard Moireoser.

Sormervet Kitii,,ng Millk, lupra, is factually distilguishahle frorn the instalt case 2 In view of the substanlial iumhber if Responldenl', employees wI tho are Spanish-speaking. we finld nleril ih the Geineral Counsel's request that Respondent be required to post the ltice to enmployees inl Spanish as well as in English, aid we shall modify the Administraive I ;aw Judges recommenlded Order accordingly 250 NLRB No. 87 '(c) Post at its Redwood Plant, in Los Angeles,

California, copies of the attached notice marked 'Appendix.'t 7

Copies of said notice in English and Spanish, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.' DECISION

S I AII.Mt N I Ol Tilt- CASI JAMEIS S. JI.NSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on May 8, 9, and 10, 1979. The complaint issued on February 8, 1979, pursuant to a charge, first amended and second amended charges filed on September I and 5, and November 3, 1978, respectively, and alleges that on August 24, 197 8,i certain of the Respondent's employees, including Jose M. Carranza, Gilberto Castro, Juan Marin, and Ranulfo Ruiz, went out on strike in protest of their terms and conditions of employment; that the four above-named employees were discharged on August 25;

that on August 30 they unconditionally offered to return, but that the Respondent failed and refused to reinstate them because they had joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other protected concerted activities and/or because they participated in the strike. The Respondent contends the four alleged discriminatees quit their employment on August 24 when they engaged in an unprotected sit-in strike, and were refused reinstatement on August 30 because of further unprotected activities involving their advocacy of violent revolution. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.

Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent and have been carefully considered.

Upon the entire record in the case, including the demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the posthearing briefs, I make the following:

FINI)IN;S 01 FACI I. JURISI)IC I ION The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of shoes and handbags in Los Angeles, California, and annually sells and ships goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. It is admitted and found on these facts that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

i All dales hereafter are in 11978unless otherwise slaled 520


  1. I'Hi IAHOR ORGANIZA IION INVOI VIl) It is admitted and found that Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers and Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

  2. THE ALL EGED UNFAIR L ABOR PRACI'ICES A. The Setting The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes and handbags in three plants located in the Los Angeles area. The only facility involved herein is the Redwood Avenue Plant which employs approximately 750 employees. The Redwood Plant is composed of several departments, including the stitching department which has about 275 employees in various classifications including approximately 75 cementers. Jack Atkins is the director of manufacturing and in overall charge of the operation. Frank MacNichol is the plant superintendent and directly responsible to Atkins. Lloyd MacNichol is the foreman in the stitching department and is responsible to his brother Frank. Luis Montes described his title as management assistant in the stitching room. Most of the stitching department employees are Spanish-speaking.

Montes, who speaks Spanish, assists Lloyd MacNichol who does not. The 'floor' people, including Trini Ibarra, are responsible to Montes. The Respondent admits that Atkins and Frank and Lloyd MacNichol, hereafter called Frank and Lloyd, respectively, are supervisors, but denies Montes is a supervisor.2

Jose Carranza, Gilberto Castro, Juan Marin, and Ranulfo Ruiz are the alleged discrimintees. All were employed in the stitching department.

Most of Respondent's employees are paid on a piece rate basis, the rate being established by a timestudy.

However, when a new shoe is substantially identical to a shoe already in production, the piecework rate on the shoe in production is applied to the new shoe. The timestudy program was not initiated until about March following one of several work stoppages that occurred because of a dispute over the piecework prices. The March work stoppage lasted several days. Sometime in the early part of the year, the employees decided to organize. Carranza, a member of the Committee Against Racism, herein called CAR, arranged for a meeting of several employees at the office of The Social Alliance on Valencia Street in Los Angeles, for the purpose of deciding how they should organize. The Valencia Street address is also used by CAR and the Progressive Labor Party, herein called PLP.3

The employees present decided to contact the Teamsters Union. Accordingly, Castro, Carranza, and Manual Tapia spoke to Teamsters officials and obtained authorization cards which they distributed over a period of several months. A second meeting of some of the employees was held at the same location a couple of In his post-hearing brief. the (GeneralCounlsel uconceded it is notincessary to make a finding regarding Monies' alleged supervisory status :' As is made clear by its literaturc. the PI' is a revolutioniary cnommunist organization which adsocates the o,scrthrow, b.h siolenl means, of the capitalist system. and the establishmenl of kocialism months later. Sometime in either June or July, Carranza was terminated for refusing to work overtime, and the Respondent found it necessary to call the police since Carranza refused to leave the premises. Lloyd testified that during an exchange of words with Carranza regarding his refusal to work overtime or to leave the premises,

Carranza alluded to the fact that the laws of this country meant nothing to him. 4

A general work stoppage followed Carranza's...

To continue reading