Extract
Alaska Glass and Millwork, Inc., 785 (1967)
ALASKA GLASS AND MILLWORK, INC. 785
Alaska Glass and Millwork , Inc., and Local Union No. 1281 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-3367October 16, 1967 DECISION AND ORDERBy CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIAOn July 18, 1967, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of those allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified below.In December 1965, or January 1966, all four of the Respondent's employees signed authorization cards for the Charging Union. On January 13, 1966, the Union filed a petition seeking a representation election with the Seattle, Washington, Regional Office of the Board. Al Buza (hereafter Buza), Respondent's president and brother of employee Walter Buza (hereafter Walter), was away when this took place. When he returned and Walter told him of these events, Buza told the employees in no uncertain terms that he was against the Union and would do all in his power to keep it out. As found by the Trial Examiner, between January 17 and March 1, the Respondent engaged in extensive violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.Walter was laid off by the Respondent on March 10 because his poor installation had caused an expensive piece of thermopane glass to crack and he had attempted to evade responsibility by offering an implausible excuse. Walter was recalled to work on April 12. When he returned to the shop, he found Buza and their father waiting for him. ,They accused him of having been the instigator of the union movement among the Respondent's employees, and the leader responsible for the Respondent's trouble with the Union.On May 8, 1966, Walter entered a bid for supplying surveyors' stakes to the State of Alaska. The Respondent also bid for the contract. The record shows that the brothers had bid against each other on this contract for ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
