Extract
Bowling Transportation, Inc., 393 (2001)
Bowling Transportation, Inc. and Richard Ashby.
Case 25-CA-26896 September 28, 2001DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, TRUESDALE, AND WALSH On September 22, 2000, Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions,1 a supporting brief, and a reply brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions as modified3 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4 As explained below, the judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees Richard Ashby and Kenneth Hanks they were being disciplined for protected concerted activity and, in Ashby's case, for suspected union activity. For the reasons stated by the judge, we agree. The judge further found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging Ashby and Hanks for protected concerted activity and for suspected union activity. For the reasons stated below, we agree. The judge also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by threatening employee Jeffrey Horton with reprisals for his protected concerted activity and suspected union activity and by discharging him for both activities. We agree. As set forth below, however, we find it necessary to correct two of the judge's findings to conform to the evidence. 1 No exceptions were filed to the judge's dismissal of the allegations that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by creating the impression that employees' union and protected activities were under surveillance and by promulgating and posting a rule forbidding employees from discussing their wages. 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 3 We shall modify Conclusion of Law 5 to correct Jeffrey Horton's name and to conform to the violations found. 4 We shall modify the judge's recommended Order in accordance with our recent decision in Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142 (2001). I. RICHARD ASHBY AND KENNETH HANKS The Respondent transports steel from steel mills, including those of AK Steel, to major automotive producers. The Respondent also performs intraplant steel hauling at AK Steel. In 1999,5 the Respondent employed Kenneth Hanks as a "supertruck" driver and Richard Ashby as a "supertruck" driver and "tow motor" operator. Both Ashby and Hanks performed their work for the Respondent on AK's property.6 As explained more fully in the judge's decision, AK had a safety bonus program under which its contractors, including the Respondent, could earn up to $1 for each injury-free hour worked by their employees. The Respondent decided to share 50 cent...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
