Extract
Browning Industries, Inc., 1397 (1963)
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 28, 1963, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Intermediate Report 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 Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].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 Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' 'In the absence of exceptions thereto we adopt pro forma the findings of the Trial Examiner that ( 1) the Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by a statement to the employees that they did not need a union but could deal with the management through an employee representative ; and (2 ) it was unnecessary to decide whether a threat that there would be a number of discharges if the Union won the pending election was a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in 'the absence of a supporting allegation in the complaint.' 142 NLRB No. 148.ORDERThe Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDERSTATEMENT OF THE CASEThe complaint alleges that the Respondent , Browning Industries, Inc. (herein also called the Company ), has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq.; herein called the Act), by threatening and assaulting employees because of their activities on behalf of a labor organization named Local 1710, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (referred to below as the Union); increasing wages and making offers of benefits to employees in order to influence their votes in a representation election; and promising employees to institute a grievance committee if they rejected the Union in the election. The Respondent has filed an answer which , in material substance, denies the commission of the unfair labor practices imputed to it.' Pursuant to notice duly served by the General Counsel upon all parties entitled thereto, a hearing upon the issues in this proceeding has been held before Trial Examiner Herman Marx at Los Angeles, California. The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared through, and were represented at the hearing by, respective counsel; and participated therein . The Union, which filed the charge upon which the complaint ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
