Extract
Cadre Industries Corp., 278 (1958)
Cadre Industries Corporation and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA1434. July 31, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER
On April 9, 1959, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs.The Board 1 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 exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications indicated below.1. The Respondent has excepted to unfair labor practice findings of the Trial Examiner, which we have adopted, on the ground that he erred in his credibility resolutions. However, it is well established that the Board will not overrule a Trial Examiner's resolution as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces the Board that such resolution was incorrect.' No such conclusion is warranted in this case. We have, therefore, adopted the Trial Examiner's credibility findings.2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent engaged in independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In so finding, we rely on the following: Plant Superintendent Susco's telephone conversation with employee Sferrazzo on June 18, 1958, in which Susco, after telling Sferrazzo that he had heard rumors of union organization activity, questioned Sferrazzo as to what was going on, told Sferrazzo that, if the employees organized, they would i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].2 In connection with our adoption of the Trial Examiner's finding that the Advisory Council was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, see recent opinion of the Supreme Court in N.L.R. B. v. Cabot Carbon Company, 360 U.S. 203.3Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 9 1 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3) ;Baltimore Steam Packet Company, 120 NLRB 1521, 1524.124 NLRB No. 33.really have to work for promotions and that Respondent could always fill important jobs with men from its east coast operations, and mentioned to Sferrazzo that he knew the identity of those engaged in the organizational effort; Susco's conversations with employees Scott and Fontaine on June 19, during which he told Scott that he was aware of the leadership of the organizational drive and of the place and time of the organizational meeting; Susco's conversation with...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
