Extract
Anaconda American Brass Co., 474 (1964)
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD speaking to them as a committeeman, 'can- Blanton deny 'responsibility for their presence. In fact he did not make any such denial to Holbrooke when he, attempted to explain to the latter only that he had not violated the rule because he was not himself working at the time. We need not determine whether ,Floyd, the boilerman, was kept from his work and thus interfered with during the 4 to 5 minutes when he attended the conversation, although he had apparently come for a,drink of water only.
Holbrooke testified that his investigation disclosed that ,; of the rank-and-file employees, only Blanton and Gearing took an active part in the conversation . Bagwell and Ray told him that they had not entered • into it, and according to Blanton,himself, Gearing had merely asked what he.thought of -the Union . -(We recall reference to a question by 'somebody.') Although they should have.' been- working instead of listening to Blanton for 5 or 25 minutes,- there- is no claim, that- Bagwell,Ray, or Floyd violated any company rule in -listening or being interfered with and kept - from working, or -that failure to take action against them constituted disparate treatment as Blanton suggested when he was discharged and referred to possible action against Gearing . In fact, the General Counsel's position is that the other employees 'were not directly involved.' It will add nothing to this Decision to point out, in anticipation of objections, that Blanton was not merely • an employee away from his work and his work -station who was instrumental in keeping others away from their work for •15 to 25 minutes. However much attention may be given to inconsequentials, the fact is that Blanton's status at the time , after his shift had been .completed and he had left the plant and then returned , was little if at all more than that' of an outsider although he had reentered the plant because he was an employee: Certainly he had no more business in the machine shop of the time than an outsider.. He had no right to be there and he interfered with the work of others . It cannot be properly found that the Company took action against this 1 of 46 (later 51 ) committeemen because of his union activities and not because of his rule violation or interference with other employees' work. Here again condonation was suggested in the General -, Counsel's reference to another employee who has been permitted to return to the plant after working hours. But it was not shown that he violated the rule against interfering with the work of other employees. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.2. The Company has not engaged in unfair. labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) or ( 1) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDERUpon the basis of the foregoing finding of fact and conclusions of law ,' and upon th...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
