Extract
Auburn Rubber Co., Inc., 301 (1965)
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 22, 1965, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 156 NLRB No. 30.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. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated amended complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision, accompanied by briefs.-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 this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the, Trial Examiner 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 briefs, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations, as modified hereinafter.1. While otherwise agreeing with the Trial Examiner's rationale for the Board not deferring to the arbitrator's award with respect to the unlawful discharge involved herein, we do not rely on that portion of his reasoning which is bottomed on the fact that the Rubber Workers, not a party to the existing collective-bargaining contract, had not agreed to be bound by the arbitration proceeding. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the arbitrator's decision, as it pertains to the independent Section 8(a) (1.) and (2) issues here, should not be honored for the reason that such issues were not submitted to the arbitrator for adjudication and for the additional reason that such issues did not.involve any question of interpretation or application of the collective-bargaining agreement.2. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent rendered unlawful assistance to the Deming Employees Association in violation of Section 8 (a) (2), we rely principally on the fact that, at the time Mrs. Randall played a leading role in the organization of the assisted union, she exercised supervisory authority by hiring job applicants.3. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent discharged the six employees involved here because of their adherence 1 We hereby overrule the Trial Examiner 's refusal to accept in evidence the Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 4, being the collective -bargaining contract between the Respondent and the Teamsters and certain pleadings in a court proceeding and related documents referred to in the Trial Examiner 's Decision . They are hereby made part of the record in this proceeding. We have considered these exhibits in reaching our decision.. 2 In the absence of exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's findings, that the Respondent did not ' engage in independent unfair labor practices encompassed by Section 8(a)(1) other than those found, we adopt these findings pro forma.AUBURN RUBBER COMPANY, INC. 303.to the United Rubber Wor...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
