Extract
Alside, Inc. And Lawrence Edwin Worlmy, Jr., 460 (1950)
In the Matter of ALSIDE, INC. and LAWRENCE EDWIN WORLMY, JR.
Case No. 8-CA-96.-Decided February 3, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On May 5, 1949, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.The rulings are hereby affirmed.2 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent with this Decision and Order.3 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by certain conduct'engaged in by Cochrane, the Respondent's plant superintendent, as set forth in the Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that Cochrane's statement to Wolonsky, the Union's vice president, that the Respondent might not be pleased with the advent of the Union and could move out of town in which event Wolonsky would lose his job, did not constitute a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.In view of the fact that no exception was filed to the latter finding, we do not pass on this point.1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].2 We agree with the Trial Examiner's ruling in denying the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complainant was 'fronting' of an organization which was not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Olin Industries,Inc., Winchester Repeating Arms Company Division, 86 NLRB 203.3 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the exceptions and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.88 NLRB No. 101. 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent discriminatorily laid off a group of 19 employees on September 16, 1948, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.3. The record shows, as found by the Trial Examiner, that on the morning of September 17, 1948, 12 employees engaged in a strike in protest of the Respondent's discriminatory action in laying off the first group of employees. We agree with the Trial Examiner that, as fully set forth in the Intermediate Report,4 the Respondent discharged these employees on September 17 because of their strike activity, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, who recommended that these employees be awarded back pay from September 17, 1948, the date of their discharge, we find, for the reasons stated below, that they are entitled to back pay only from September 20,1948.The Remedy Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily laid off 19 employees and that only 3 of them were reinstated or offered reinstatement we shall order the Respondent to reinstate the remaining 16 employees, listed in column 1 of Appendix A, to their former or substantially equivalent positions and to make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the Respondent's discrimination against t...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
