Roberti Brothers, Inc., 925 (1938)
In the Matter of ROBERTI BROTHERS , INC. and FURNITURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1561Cases Nos. C-507 and R-554.-Decided August 16, 1938 Furniture and Mattress Manufacturing In dustry Intei feu ence, Restraint, and,Coercion: anti-union notices; posting of statements calculated to discourage membership in Union ; bonus announcement having coercive effect ; charges of, dismissed as to lay-offs ; charges of, unsupported as to foremen questioning employees regarding union membership and activities ; charges of, unsupported as to foremen making statements derogatory to Union; charges of, unsupported as to influencing employees to repudiate Union-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal by employer to recognize union-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: employees in mill, frame, and finishing departments, excluding foremen, working foremen, elevator operators, and clerical workers ; controversy as to ; occupational differences, supervisory employees excluded-Election Ordered: time to be set in future when effects of unfair labor practices have been dissipated. Mr. Charles M. Brooks, for the Board. Mr. Ben C. Cohen, of Los Angeles, Calif, for the respondent. Mr. John Murray and Mr. Ernest- Marsh, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Union. Mr. Robert L. Condon, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 27, 1937, Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Roberti Brothers, Inc.,' Los Angeles, California, herein called the respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The respondent was improperly designated as Roberti Biothers in the original petition. 3 N L. R B., No. 114 925 On October 6, 1937, the Union filed an amended petition. On November 9, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On November 26, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, Central Labor Council, Los Angeles, California, and upon Los Angeles Industrial Union Council. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on December 2, 3, and 4, 1937, at Los Angeles, California, before Dwight W. Stephenson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. On December 4, 1937, the hearing was adjourned to be reconvened upon 24 hours' notice. On December 4, 1937, Frank Lopez, organizer for the Union, filed with the Regional Director charges alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act. Thereafter, on December 16, -1937, the Board, by Towne Nylander, its Regional Director, issued its complaint against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and - (7) of the Act. On December 18, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, See; tion 10 (c), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the hearing on the complaint be consolidated with the hearing on the petition which, on December 4, 1937, had been adjourned to be reconvened on-24 hours' notice. Copies of the complaint, notice of hearing, and notice to reconvene adjourned hearing were duly served upon the parties upon whom the original notice of hearing was served. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent had warned its employees not to join the Union and had threatened their discharge or transfer to an inferior position if they became or remained members thereof; (2) that the respondent had prominently displayed around its plant notices derogatory to the Union; and (3) that the respondent had coerced the employees into signing statements disavowing the Union as their representative for collective bargaining. It was alleged that these acts interfered with the employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On December 27, 1937, the respondent filed its answer, which in substance denied the jurisdiction of the Board and denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Admitting that its employees had signed statements disavowing the Union as their representative for collective bargaining, the respondent denied that the employees had been coerced into signing. Pursuant to the notice of hearing and the notice to reconvene adjourned hearing, the hearing in both cases was convened on December 27 and 28, 1937, before the Trial Examiner who had conducted the previous hearing. At both hearings the Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representatives. Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP