American Hoist & Derrick Co., 1016 (1974)

National Labor Relations Board

Linked as:

Extract


American Hoist & Derrick Co., 1016 (1974)

Industrial Brownhoist Division, American Hoist & Derrick Company and Local 2015, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-10467

November 18, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On May 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Samuel Ross issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent that they are consistent with this Decision and Order.

1. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent's refusal to reemploy Stafanski before the expiration of a 6-month period after his last layoff, because of the pendency of unresolved grievances concerning its policy in this respect, was unlawfully motivated and violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). We do not agree.

The facts are fully set forth by the Administrative Law Judge and are not substantially disputed. Briefly, Respondent adopted a practice of laying off probationary employees before they completed their probationary periods and refusing to rehire them within 6 months after layoff in order to prevent their acquiring or retaining seniority under the terms of the existing contract with the Union. Employee Reinholz, who had been laid off on April 12, 1973, pursuant to this policy, filed grievances concerning the practice which were taken to arbitration. Stefanski had been rehired on March 13, and laid off on April 13 before his probationary period was up, because of lack of work,' and he sought reemployment on July 18 or 20. As the Administrative Law Judge found,2 the Respondent at that time clearly refused 1 Apparently the Admi...

See the full content of this document

Sponsored links




ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company