Extract
CBF, Inc., 1064 (1994)
CBF, Inc., and/or Charles Santangelo, Single Employers and United Mine Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 6-CA-23769, 6-CA-24186, 6- CA-24646, and 6-CA-24804
September 12, 1994DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHENOn July 23, 1993, Administrative Law Judge Richard H. Beddow Jr. issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and an answering brief in opposition to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief in opposition to the Respondent's exceptions, and the Charging Party filed a response in opposition to the Respondent's exceptions.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,1 findings,2 and con- clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3ORDERThe National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, CBF, Inc., and/or Charles Santangelo, Single Employers, McClellandtown, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). ''(a) Offer to Robert Belch, James Byers, Jacob Hartmen, Dennis Hornbeck, David Romito, Wesley Shaffer, John Michael Stout, Steven Stout, and Marion Strosnider immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.'' 2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter the subsequent paragraphs.''(b) Make whole employees Robert Belch, James Byers, Jacob Hartmen, Dennis Hornbeck, David Romito, Wesley Shaffer, John Michael Stout, Steven Stout, Glenn O. Franks, and Marion Strosnider for any losses they suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.'' 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge.APPENDIXNOTICE TO EMPLOYEESPOSTED BY ORDER OF THENATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDAn Agency of the United States GovernmentThe National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choiceTo act together for other mutual aid or protectionTo choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogating employees about union support or union activities, by creating the impression employees' union activities are under surveil-1 We do not pass on the judge's discussion of the single employer issue or the issue of derivative liability as unnecessary to the disposition of the unfair labor practice allegations.2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.We also find no merit in the Respondent's allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge. Thus, we find no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence. Similarly, there is no basis for finding that bias and prejudice exist merely because the judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel's witnesses. NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949).We agree with the judge's conclusion that the Respondent had knowledge of union activity when it began its campaign of unlawful activity, but we do not rely on the judge's finding of unlawful impressions of surveillance by Supervisor Joseph Persely on July 10 and 25. We disagree with the judge that Persely's actions on those two occasions created the impression that employees' union activities were under surveillance. We note that, in any event, the violations would be cumulative and do not affect the remedy or the Order.We correct the following inadvertent factual misstatem...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
