Extract
Airtron, Inc., 372 (1972)
Barwise Sheet Metal Co., Inc., a Division of Airtron,
Inc.; American Air Conditioning Co., Inc.; Fahnestock, Inc., a Division of Airtron Inc.; and Airtron Inc., as Joint and Successor Employers and Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 29, affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers International Association. Case 17-CA-4792September 29, 1972 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On March 14, 1972, Trial Examiner Joseph I.Nachman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Respondents filed an answering brief.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 Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.The Trial Examiner found that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5)by unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of its employees and by thereafter failing and refusing to comply with the terms of its contract with the Union.He further found that it was unnecessary to decide whether Section 8(a)(3) was violated as alleged in the complaint because the remedy for such a violation would be the same as that required to remedy the 8(a)(5) violation. The General Counsel excepts, contending the Trial Examiner should have ruled on that allegation and found that Danny T. Duckett and Gary Thompson were constructively discharged and that the eight employees who took nonunion jobs with Barwise were discriminated against by a reduction of their rate of pay by the Respondents, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions.The essential facts upon which the General Counsel bases the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3) are fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision (beginning with the second full paragraph of his section entitled 'Current Facts'). In late March or early April 1971,' Gary Thompson and Dan Duckett asked Julius Marvel, superintendent of Respondents, about certain rumors concerning Respondents' 'going nonun1 All dates refer to 1971 unless otherwise indicated.ion.' Marvel said he had heard the rumors but did not know for sure. A month later Marvel visited Thompson at a jobsite and told him he had to make a decision as to whether he (Thompson) was going to 'stay in' the Union or stay with the Company. Thompson said he would retain his membership in the Union and quit Respondents. Shortly thereafter Duckett telephoned Marvel to seek confirmation as to whether the Respondents were going nonunion. Marvel confirmed Respondent would be nonunion and told Duckett he had to decide if he would stay with the Union or stay with the Company. Duckett indicated that because he had secured union employment in Kansas City and would be fined by the Union if he worked in a nonunion shop he did not seek further employment with Respondents. Duckett went to Kansas City and remained there. Thompson also went to Kansas City but returned after 1 week (for family reasons) and asked Marvel for a union job.Marvel gave him a union job at a Wichita location.Thompson eventually left Respondents after the job was completed because he knew there was no more union work available ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
