Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. And Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 872, Affiliated With The International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Of America, A. F. L., 544 (1950)

Docket Number: 6-CA-S203

Parts: 558

Linked as:

Extract

In the Matter of STANDARD DRY WALL PRODUCTS, INC. and TEAMSTERS,

CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL 872, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.

Case No. 6-CA-S203.-Decided September 28, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On May 19, 1950, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley 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, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent filed a brief. The Respondent also requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied because, in our opinion, the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.

1. The Respondent excepts to various findings of the Trial Examiner, on the ground that he erred in crediting the testimony of employees Struniak and Mejia and in refusing to credit the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses, General Manager Canon and Superintendent Begg. It is apparent that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings were based in large part on his observation of the witnesses.

In all cases, save only where there are no exceptions to the Trial Examiner's proposed report and recommended order, the Act commits to the Board itself, not to the Board's Trial Examiners, the power and responsibility of determining the facts, as revealed by the preponder91 NLRB No. 103.

544 545 ance of the evidence.' Accordingly, in all cases which come before us for decision we base our findings as to the facts upon a de novo review of the entire recol, and do not deem ourselves bound by the Trial Examiner's findings. Nevertheless, as the...

See the full content of this document