Extract
Caterpillar Tractor Co., 527 (1980)
CATKRPI'IILAR IRACTOR CO.
Caterpillar Tractor Co. and Local 806, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Michael D. Johnson; Paul E. Wellna; Michael D. Perkins. Cases 30-CA-4715, 30-CA-4758, 30CA-4758-2, and 30-CA-4758-3July 10, 1980 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND PENELLOOn February 22, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Robert M. Schwarzbart issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel, Charging Party Local 806, and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.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,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.I Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made 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 convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.Although we have found no basis for reversing the Administrative Law Judge's discrediting of Manufacturing Manager Washam's testimony that Respondent had previously imposed moratoriums on voluntary downgrading, we note that the Administrative Law Judge overstated Washam's testimony to the extent that he indicated that Washam had testified he had twice suspended all granting of transfers downward. The testimony of Washam. as well as that of Employee Relations Manager Spitzer, specifically indicates no more than that for limited periods of time total moratoriums were imposed only on such transfers out of particular job classifications. The moratorium imposed by Respondent in April 1978,. which isthe subject of the instant proceeding, prevented employees inover 70 job classifications from obtaining such transfers, including some 20 employees inat least 10 job classifications whose transfer requests were passed over when ajanitor was hired on May 15. 1978.Accordingly, even absent such credibility resolutions. the evidence does not support Respondent's claim that its moratorium was grounded on past practice.While the Administrative Law Judge's detailed findings faithfully reflect the evidence contained in the record herein inall essential respects,Respondent's exceptions correctly specify certain inaccuracies. all of a minor nature The record indicates that Respondent did not always notify the Union when downgrade transfer requests were passed over. but that such explanations were only occasionally forthcoming. Further. Respondent's expressed willingness to present the instant dispute regarding downgrade requests to the same arbitrator who had heard the McDonnell case was only for the purpose of clarifying the scope of that arbitration award.We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent's unilateral modification of the transfer request system, indefinitely suspending downgrade transfers for which approximately 280 requests had been made, constituted a serious unfair labor practice, and that the resulting strike was protected concerted activity under the Board's ruling in The Dow Chemical Company, 244 NLRB No. 129 (1979).3 Having found the strike activity to be protected under the Act, we further adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent unlawfully disciplined certain participants in this strike. In so doing, however, we find it unnecessary to speculate as to whether all such discipline and the reasons therefor would have been unlawful had the strike been unprotected.Because we conclude that Respondent's unilateral restriction on downgrade transfers was a serious unfair labor practice, and that Respondent unlawfully disciplined employees who struck in protest of this unilateral change, we further conclude that Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from violating the National Labor Relations Act 'in any other manner.' See Hickmort Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,Caterpillar Tractor Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, ...See the full content of this document
