American Building Components Co., 811 (1973)

Extract

---

American Building Components Co., 811 (1973)

AMERICAN BUILDING COMPONENTS

Edwin P. Omernick d/b/a American Building Components Company and Millmen's Union No. 550, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Case 20-CA-7480

May 22, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 8, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Louis S. Penfield issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to which the General Counsel responded.

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 and General Counsel's response and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.

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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Edwin P. Omernick d/b/a American Building Components Company,

Dublin, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Louis S. PENFIELD, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me in San Francisco, California, on September 20 and October 2 and 3, 1972, with all parties represented.' The complaint is based on a charge and amended charge filed May 9, 1972, and July 25, 1972, respectively, by Millmen's Union No. 550, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein called Local 550. The complaint alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) by Edwin P. Omernik d/b/a American Building Components Company, herein called Respondent. Copies of the charges and complaint were duly served on Respondent. All parties were given full opportunity to participate Stewart Weinberg entered an appearan...

See the full content of this document

---