Extract
Cherry Rivet Co., 1303 (1951)
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.It having been found that the Respondents have refused to bargain collectively with the Union, the statutory representative in the appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondents bargain collectively with the Union and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following :CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Local 108, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondents.2. All production and shipping employees employed by the Respondents at their Dauphin plant excluding office and clerical employees, machinists, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b); of the Act.3. Local' 108, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, A. F. of L., is now, and has been at all times since August 29, 1949, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.4. By refusing on September 6, 1949, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with Local 108, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] CHERRY RIVET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW-CIO.Case No. 21-CA-964. January 29, 1950Decision and Order On July 10, 1951, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 97 NLRB No. 212.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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.. The Board 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, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent that they are consistent with this Decision and Order.1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that while the circumstances surrounding the dismissals of Harold Fox, Frank Cracchiola, and Louis Petrone are suspicious, the record does not establish that these individuals were discharged because of their activities on behalf of the Union. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that no promotions were withdrawn from employees` Stephens and Sias in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.2. We agree with the Tr...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
