Extract
Atlanta Daily World, 159 (1971)
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD - 159
C. A: Scott; Individually and as Administrator d/b/a Atlanta , Daily - World'-and Atlanta Typographical TJninh` No. 48. Cases 10--(,',A-7875 and 10-CA-8136July 21, 1971 DECISION AND ORDERBY' ME'MBERs FANNn. G, BROWN, AND KENNEDYOn April 1, 1971, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Decision in the,above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in - certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached 'Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,Respondent filed 'exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with 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, powers-in connection with these cases to a, threememberpanel.The Board has,reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases,' and hereby.adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.The Trial - Examiner found -that Respondent's employees went out on strike on April 1, 1969, in protest over the discriminatory discharge of employee Joe Anderson. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, that Anderson, was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3)',and (1);of the Act and, ,, therefore, the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. He also found that, by. letters -dated May 29and December 16, 1969, the striking' employees through their -Union made unconditional offers to return to work and that Respondent violated the Act by refusing to reinstate these employees on May 29,1969.In reaching' this conclusion, the Trial Examiner relied` solely upon the `two' betters and did not give sufficient weight to the substantial evidence that the offers were 'in, fact, conditioned on the reinstatement of Anderson. The record reveals that in spite of the letters the Respondent understood the Union's position to be that. everybody, including Anderson, must be reinstated. - The testimony of the Union's International representative with regard to the December 26,'1969, negotiating session tends to corroborate this position. It is well-settled that any request for 192 NLRB No. 30 reinstatement which is conditioned on removing the cause of the strike is not an unconditional offer.2Therefore,we find that as the Union's applications for reinstatement were conditional, -they were not valid.Respondent had no legal. obligation to honor the requests and its refusal toreinstate the strikers was not violative of the Act. Accordingly, we do not-adopt the Trial Examiner's remedy with regard to the reinstatement of the strikers and shall amend the Order in this respect.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 Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Re...See the full content of this document
