Carpenters, Local 1849, 461 (1974)

Extract

---

Carpenters, Local 1849, 461 (1974)

CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1849 461

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1849, AFL-CIO and Robert Young Developments, Inc. Case 19-CP-183

January 17, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS

KENNEDY AND PFNELLO

On March 12, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Jerrold H. Shapiro issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief,

Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and in opposition to exceptions.

Pursuant to tie 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 only to the extent consistent herewith.

The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by picketing Robert Young Developments, Inc., for the purpose of securing recognition without filing an election petition within 30 days after the commencement of such picketing.

The Respondent admittedly picketed for recognition, but argued at the hearing that it was for continued rather than initial recognition. At the hearing the parties litigated only the issue of whether Respondent picketed for continued recognition of an employer operating under a new name or whether the Employer was a new employer and the picketing was for initial recognition.

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Employer was an employer which had at one time recognized Respondent as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees and was operating under a new name, but that it had successfully terminated its collective-bargaining relationship and that the picketing was for initial recognition. Respondent has not excepted to this finding, and we adopt it.

Although the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent was picketing for initia...

See the full content of this document

---