Extract
Atlantic Creosoting Co., 192 (1979)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Atlantic Creosoting Company, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-12436
May 14, 1979 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPIIY, AND TRUESDALE On October 7, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Robert Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and a motion to reopen the record and receive additional evidence, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief and a response to Respondent's motion to reopen the record and receive additional evidence.' 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, as modified below, and to adopt his recommended Order.2 as modified herein.We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by conditioning reinstatement of economic strikers upon their execution of work application forms and by placing a time limitation upon their applications,3 and violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by taking such action without notification to or consultation with the Union.4However, as set forth below, we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of Respondent has moved to reopen the record and receive additional evidence for the purpose of explicating the status of employee Prince Jackson.Jr. However, inasmuch as we have found, as fully set forth below, that the issue of whether Respondent unlawfully refused to reinstate employee Jackson was not timely raised or fully litigated, we deny Respondent's motion.2 In his recommended Order, the Administrative L.aw Judge uses the narrow cease-and-desist language. 'in any like or related manner.' Respondent here has committed violations which go to the very heart of the Act. We shall, therefore, require Respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees by Sec. 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwirtle Mfg. Co. 120 F.2d 535. 536 (4th Cir. 1941):Electrical Filings Corporation a subsidiary of I-T-E Imperial Corporation.216 NLRB 1076 (1975),On November 17 and 18. 1976, Respondent hired replacements for the strikers. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree. that the replacements were permanent and that Respondent did not violate the Act by replacing the strikers prior to their unconditional offer to return to work.4 Although the Adminis...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
