Extract
Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc., 1027 (1981)
ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES. INC 1027
Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Case 26-CA-8021July 1, 1981 DECISION AND ORDEROn December 18, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.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 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.On August 6 and again on August 14, 1979, Respondent's supervisor, Lipford, asked employee Kelling if he had heard anything from the Union.In the later conversation, Lipford added that he thought the Union had won employees Palmer and Lemly over. The Administrative Law Judge properly found the questions regarding the Union constituted unlawful interrogation, but omitted any discussion of the lawfulness of the remark concerning Palmer and Lemly. We agree with the General Counsel's contention that Lipford's latter remark in the context of the conversation in which he unlawfully interrogated Keeling also created the impression of surveillance of union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and we so find. The Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order is modified accordingly.ORDERPursuant 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc., Morrilton, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified:1. Substitute the following for paragraph (f):'(f) Creating impressions of surveillance of employees' union activities by supervisors informing them they could tell who attended union meetings,I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hN the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credil bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relesant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Sandard Dry Wa'ill Prdulcts I...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
