Extract
Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 1050 (1970)
Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc. and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-2838
December 4, 1970 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERSFANNING AND JENKINSOn April 10, 1968, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party all filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support of their exceptions.The Respondent also filed a reply brief.While the proceeding was pending before the Board, the Respondent moved to reopen the record on the ground that the Board's subsequent Laidlaw decision' necessitated further litigation in this proceeding with respect to the reinstatement rights of striking employees. The General Counsel filed an opposition to this motion.By Executive Secretary's Order, dated January 15, 1969, the Board granted Respondent's motion to reopen the record, and further ordered that the hearing be reconvened before a Trial Examiner for the purpose of litigating the reinstatement status of the striking employees in light of the Board's Laidlaw Decision. Pursuant to this Order, a hearing was conducted before Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich, and on June 5, 1969, Trial Examiner Goerlich issued a Supplemental Decision, attached hereto, in which he found that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily refusing to recall and reinstate employee-strikers to job openings as they became available, and he recommended that certain affirmative action be taken.Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision, together with briefs in support of their exceptions.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its 1 The Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB No 1752 We find no merit in the Respondent's exception to Trial Examiner Goencch's ruling granting the General Counsel's motion for leave to file a reply brief Such a motion may be properly filed at any time prior to the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision and the transfer of the proceeding to the Board Pursuant to Section 102 25 of the Board's Rules and Regulations (Series 8, as amended), the Trial Examiner is empowered powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners made at both the original and supplemental hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiners' Decision and Supplemental Decision, and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions, briefs, and motions and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiners to the extent they are consistent with the following.2Briefly, the facts show that on February 18, 1966,3 the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for all production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Dallas, Texas, plant.Following the certification, the parties met in numerous bargaining sessions, but when no agreement on a contract was reached, the Union called a strike on July 26, which continued until November 4. On the latter date, the Union notified the Respondent that it was terminating the strike and requesting reinstatement for all striking employees. The Respondent agreed to offer reinstatement to all employee-strikers who had not been permanently replaced during the strike, but the Respondent contended that it was in no position to determine the reinstatement rights of the individual striker without first knowing just how many strikers actually desired reinstatement. At the Respondent's insistence, the Union compiled a list of the names of some 137 strikers who wished to be reinstated, and submitted it to the Respondent on November 7. On November 10, the Respondent notified the Union that 12 of the strikers named on the list were being reemployed pursuant to the Union's request, but that all other strikers had either been replaced or their jobs abolished.4 Following receipt of the Respondent's reinstatement notification, the Union called a second strike on November 14, allegedly to protest the manner in which the Respondent was handling the Union's reinstatement request. However on November 17, the Union advised the Respondent that it would withdraw its picket line either that day or the next. The parties continued to meet regularly at bargaining sessions, but they could not reach agreement on a collectivebargaining contract and on February 22, 1967, the certifica...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
