Extract
Brown & Root-Northrop, 1 (1969)
BROWN & ROOT-NORTHROP Brown & Root-Northrop and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases 23-CA-3042 and 23-CA-3043June 26, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND ZAGORIAOn February 27, 1969, Trial Examiner Sydney S.Asher, Jr., 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.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 threemember panel.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds 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.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, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Brown & Root-Northrop, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.herein called the Union , filed charges in Case 23-CA-3042 against Brown & Root - Northrop, Houston , Texas, herein called the Respondent. On the same date, the Union filed charges in Case 23-CA-3043 against the same Respondent . After the filing of amended charges in both cases,' the Regional Director consolidated the two cases.On October 8, 1968, the General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint, alleging that since on or about June 13 , 1968, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by certain specified conduct; that on or about April 29, 1968, the Respondent transferred Marie Carrejo , one of its employees, from her job station on the first floor of Building 29 at the Manned Spacecraft Center to the second floor of Building 29 at the Manned Spacecraft Center and since then has failed and refused to return her to her former duty station; and that on or about June 21, 1968 , the Respondent denied her a merit raise, and since that date has continued its refusal to grant her a merit raise , and that such conduct was engaged in because she gave testimony under the Act.It is further alleged that on or about June 13 , 1968, the Respondent denied a merit raise to David E. Baier, one of its employees, and since that date has continued its refusal to grant him a merit raise, because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in concerted activities and because he gave testimony under the Act. It is alleged that this conduct violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C.Sec. 151 , et. seq.), herein ca...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
