Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc., 982 (1975)

National Labor Relations Board

Linked as:

Extract


Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc., 982 (1975)

Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc. and Midwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,

AFL-CIO. Cases 27-CA-4206 and 27-RC-4838

September 30, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND JENKINS

On June 2, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief in response to the General Counsel's exceptions and cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof.

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,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.

On June 7, 1974,2 the Midwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,

AFL-CIO, the Union, sent a telegram to the Respondent's owner, Duane Miller, requesting recognition in an appropriate unit of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees . As of that date, the record shows that 13 of the 20 employees in the unit had authorized the Union to represent them in collective bargaining. The Respondent declined to recognize the Union and on June 11 the Union filed a petition for an election in Case 27-RC-4838.

Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was held on July 12, which resulted in 5 ballots cast for, and 12 against, the Union. The Union thereafter filed timely objections to the election, all of which the Regional Director recommended be overruled. The Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations with respect only to the overruling of Objections 1 through 4. The Board on January 17, 1 The Respondent and the General Counsel have 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 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversmg her findings.

Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter refer to the year 1974.

1975, determined that material issues had been raised by Objection 4 and ordered that a hearing be held on the issues. The Regional Director ordered that the hearing be consolidated with the unfair labor practice proceeding in Case 27-CA-4206 for the purpose of hearing, ruling, and decision.

The Administrative Law Judge found that the objection had merit and recommended that the results of the election be set aside and that a second election be held.' For the reasons discussed below, while we agree the election should be set aside we do not agree that a second election should be held and conclude that majority employee sentiment, once expressed through valid authorization cards, would in the circumstances of this case be better protected by the issuance of a bargaining order.

The record shows that almost immediately upon receiving the Union's demand for recognition on June 7 the Respondent began a campaign to interfere with and coerce the employees regarding their desire for a union. Thus, the same day after receiving the Union's demand both Respondent's owner, Miller, and Supervisor Keifer had meetings with the employees. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that at these meetings and other times the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) discussing and promising increased insurance benefits in order to influence the employees' selection of a collective-bargaining representa...

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