Extract
American Needle & Novelty Co., 534 (1973)
Bruce E. Kronenberger and Herbert Schoenbrod d/b/a American Needle & Novelty Company, Kentucky Manufacturing Company and Harrisburg Manufacturing Company and Cap Makers Union Local No.
5, United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union-, AFL-CIO. Case -13-CA-10127October 24, 1973 DECISION AND ORDERBy MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On March 24, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I James Constantine issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent, Charging Party, and General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. On July 20, 1972, the Board issued an order reopening the record and remanding the proceeding to the, Regional Director for a further hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. On January 23, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Supplemental Decision in this o proceeding.Thereafter, the Respondent and Charging Party filed further exceptions and supporting briefs and the Charging Party 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order to the extent consistent herewith.The Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondent's conversations with union representatives concerning its decision to cease its production operation at its Chicago facility did not rise to the stature of bargaining, but found that Respondent did not act unlawfully in this respect as the decision is not a subject of mandatory bargaining, citing General Motors Corporation, GMC Truck and Coach Division, 191NLRB 951. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent did not bargain.i The title of 'Trial Examiner' was changed to 'Administrative Law Judge' effective August 19, 1972.2 The counsel for the Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.However, we do not agree with his conclusion that the failure to do so was not unlawful.The Respondent is a single, integrated, multiplant enterprise consisting of three plants. The employees at each of the three plants are represented by a different local of the United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers. Here, Respondent transferred the production work being performed at the Chicago plant to its Harrisburg plant with the resulting loss of employment of nearly all the unit employees. The essence' of the transaction was the transfer of work from one unit of employees to another, with all other work at the Chicago plant continuing. Thus, here, the same work is still being performed in the same way only by employees at another of the plants of the integrated enterprise.In our opinion, the disposition of this case is controlled by Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v.N.LR.B., 379 U.S. 203 (1964). In Fibreboard the employer, without bargaining, subcontracted the maintenance work being performed at its plant to an independent contractor. The Court, in agreement with the Board, held that such contracting is a mandatory sub-` ject of bargaining. In doing so, Chief Justice Warren noted in the majority opinion:The Company's decision to contract out the maintenance work did not alter the Company's basic operation. The maintenance work still had to be performed in the plant. No capital 5investment was contemplated; the Company merely replaced existing employees with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment. Therefore, to require the employer to bargain about the matter would not significantly abridge his freedom to manage the business. [379 U.S. 213.] The fact that here the Respondent transferred the work from one location to another , rather than subcontracting the work as i...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
