Extract
Cantor Bros., Inc., 774 (1973)
Cantor Bros., Inc. and Automotive and Allied Industries Employees of San Diego County, Local Union No. 481 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 21-CA-11174 and 21-CA-11285
May 21, 1973 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 9, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions ' and a supporting brief,' and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and an answering brief to Respondent 's exceptions.3Pursuant 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, except as noted below,4 and to adopt his recommended Order.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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Cantor Bros., Inc., San Diego, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein.i The General Counsel has moved to quash Respondent's exceptions on the ground that they do not comply with Sec. 102.46(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which requires exceptions to identify the portion of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision to which objection is made and to designate by precise citation of page the portions of the record relied on, and states that any exception which fads to comply with these requirements may be disregarded. The motion is denied. Although we do not condone the failure to comply with the Board's Rules and Regulations , we find that it was not prejudicial, inasmuch as Respondent's brief does cite the portions of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision objected to and the pages in the record upon which Respondent relies.2 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the posit...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
