Extract
Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 798 (1974)
Bulova Watch Company, Inc. and District No. 64,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-8975January 30, 1974 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERSFANNING AND PENELLOOn September 11, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Sidney Sherman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent also filed a reply brief.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 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.Unlike the Administrative Law Judge, who found it unnecessary to decide whether Backman is a supervisor, we find that it is necessary to resolve this question, and we conclude that he had supervisory status. Although the testimony on Backman's status is less than ample, coming in limited fashion from only one witness, this evidence is uncontradicted. He regularly directed the activities of three electricianhelpers and two janitors by day and was responsible for several other janitors at night. He was also in charge of numerous employees who did maintenance work on Saturday and during the 2-week vacation period when the entire plant was closed. Backman told employees volunteering for overtime whether they could work on Saturdays, then assigned them tasks and inspected the quality of the completed work. At times, specifically Saturday afternoons and throughout the vacation period, Backman was the only individual on Respondent's Warwick plant premises who was in a position to exercise supervision over Respondent's employees. Upon these facts, particularly his direction of -varied activities, including the work of electricians as well as that of maintenance workers, we conclude that Backman was a supervisor. .Respondent through Backman is alleged to have warned a group of employees that they were subject t The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings trade by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear 'preponderance of all of the relevant evidence to discharge for distributing un...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
