Extract
Daniel Finley Allen & Co., 846 (1991)
Daniel Finley Allen & Co., Inc. and Private Sanitation Union Local 813, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
Private Sanitation Union Local 813, InternationalBrotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Daniel Finley Allen, & Co., Inc. Cases 29- CA-13287, 29-CA-13515, 29-CA-13539, 29- CA-13572, 29-CA-13683, 29-CA-13802, 29- CB-6939, 29-CB-7066, and 29-CP-533July 24, 1991DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND RAUDABAUGHOn November 17, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued the attached decision. The Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs.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, findings,1 and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.3 1. The judge failed to make commerce findings. Based on the allegations in the complaints against the Respondent Employer and the Employer's admissions, we find that Daniel Finley Allen Co., Inc. is a New York corporation, with a principal office and place of business in Hicksville, New York, and that, during the year preceding the complaints, the Employer provided services in excess of $50,000 to entities that, in the course and conduct of their operations, purchased and received at their New York locations goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of New York. Accordingly, we find that Daniel Finley Allen Co., Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. We also find, based on the allegations in the complaint against the Respondent Union and the Union's failure to specifically deny them, that Private Sanitation Union Local 813 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. See Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.20. 2. The Union excepts to the judge's refusal to grant, as a part of the remedy, a bargaining order against the1 Both Respondents except 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.The Union also excepts to the failure of the judge to recount certain testimony that would be favorable to it. In a case with a record as lengthy as this one, it is not possible to recount all testimony about every incident. We have reviewed all the testimony on which the Union relies. Except for certain additional testimony which we describe below, we adopt the judge's implicit finding that the testimony he did not recount was not critical to deciding the issue before him or his implicit discrediting of that testimony.We correct the following errors or omissions in the judge's factual findings. Regarding the finding that, in February 1988 (all dates are in 1988 unless otherwise noted), the Employer's supervisor and son of the owner, John Allen, threatened to fire the employees and close the business if the employees had any idea of bringing in the Union, employee Pisan testified that the threat was made to employee Mitchell and himself, and not also to employees Greci and Ham. Regarding the finding that, in late March, replacement employee Suozzo's life was threatened, the judge misquoted Suozzo's credited testimony which was that, a passenger in a car driven by Business Agent Giamona said to him, ''If you don't [walk away] we'll kick the shit out of you. And we'll come to your house and we'll kill you.'' Also, in this incident, Suozzo identified Business Agent Jackson as being in the car, not striking employee Nalley. Regarding the finding that John Allen challenged striking employee Bruning to a fight while Bruning and striking employee Wesselhoft were in a stopped car, we note that Wesselhoft, who was credited regarding this incident, also testified, consistent with the complaint allegation, that Allen also threatened Bruning's family and Wesselhoft's home. Regarding the finding that, in early April at the picket line, John Allen threatened picketer Grisset, we note that striking employee Renzi, whom the judge credited regarding this incident, also testified that Allen also threatened to kill Renzi's father and burn down his house. Regarding the April incident where a picket blocked replacement employee Bretagna's egress through the picket line and claimed to be hit, we note that Business Agent Mas...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
