Extract
Coast Aluminum Co., 1326 (1957)
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.2: By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Perry E. Walker, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization , the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.3. By such discrimination, by warning and threat to employees because of union activities, and by interrogation concerning such activities , thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.[Recommendations omitted from publication.] Coast Aluminum Company and Wayne B. Helton and Miscellaneous Woodworkers Local No. 530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters , AFL-CIO,1 Parties to the Contract. Case No. 21-CA-3625. June 6, 1958 DECISION AND ORDEROn September 30, 1957, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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. Thereafter, Local #530, and the District Council, Parties to the Contract, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief.' The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made 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, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications noted below.1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
