Extract
Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., 54 (1972)
Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc. and Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union, Council of Georgia, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-8865, 10-CA-8901, 10-CA-8968, and 10-RC-8619May 24, 1972 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDYOn December 2, 1971, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.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 Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his recommended Order.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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales,Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.It is further ordered that the election in Case 10-RC-8619 be, and it hereby is, set aside and that proceeding is herewith dismissed.i In view of the other grounds relied on by the Trial Examiner in the finding of objectionable conduct, we find it unnecessary to pass on the issue as to whether the Employer's intrusion into the conduct of the election was of such nature as would independently furnish a basis for setting aside the election, in this connection, however, we disavow the Trial Examiner's gratuitoi.s observations with respect to conducting an election on the Employer's premises TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TOOBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASEHERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: These consolidated proceedings were heard in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 13, 1 The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect the name of the Respondent as it appears in the caption 2 It was stipulated at the hearing that Willie Randell, who also is named in the complaint as one of the alleged discnminatees, was reemployed by Respondent promptly upon his application for reinstatement and therefore Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against him 14, and 15, 1971. Following the close of the hearing briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent which have been carefully considered.Based on charges and amended charges filed on various dates between February 18 and May 11, 1971, by the above-named Umon, an order was issued on June 2, 1971, consolidating the three above-numbered complaint cases, and a complaint therein was issued alleging that the Respondent' has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Lex Jackson on February 12, 1971,E. L. Abbott on February 22, 1971, and Jerry R. Franklin on March 1, 1971; that on March 5, 1971, employees of Respondent engaged in a strike which was caused and prolonged by the Company's unfair labor practices; that on March 10, 1971, 15 of the striking employees applied for reinstatement and Respondent unlawfully has refused to reinstate them to their former employment; 2 that since February 11, 1971, the Union has been the majority representative of an appropriate unit of Respondent's employees and since that date Respondent unlawfully has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as such representative; and that by reason of the foregoing and other conduct set forth in the complaint Respondent has coerced, restrained, and interfered with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. Respondent duly filed an answer denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.On February 11, 1971, the Union filed a petition for Certification of Representative in Case 10-RC-8619.Thereafter a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election was entered into which was approved by the Regional Director on March 8, 1971. Pursuant thereto an election was conducted on April 16, 1971, among the employees in the following unit:All employees in the service department of the Company's Auto Sales and Service Agency in Atlanta,Georgia, including mechanics, assistant mechanics, new car get-ready, used car make-ready, body shop employees, plant clerical employees, and parts department employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.The tally of ballots shows that, of approximately 66 eligible voters, 4 valid ballots were cast for the...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
