Extract
Eastern Die Co., 601 (1963)
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 20, 1963, Trial Examiner George J. Bott 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 attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,1 conclusions, and recommenda1 The Respondent has excepted to credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. As it is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect , we find innsuificient basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). The Respondent 's contention concerning alleged fabrication of testimony is predicated on certain matters quoted out of context and is clearly without merit.142 NLRB No. 68.tions of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications noted hereafter.1. For the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that -the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) 2 and (3) of the Act by interrogating its employees with regard to their union interests and activities, by threatening them with economic reprisals if they continued their union adherence, and by laying off Paul Arel on June 29, 1962, and Reginald Gagnon,Paul Fortier, Robert Polley, and Roland Cyr, on July 9, 1962,3 because of their union activities. The Trial Examiner correctly found that the evidence did not sustain Respondent's contention that the layoffs were motivated solely by economic conditions. The General Counsel having proved a prima facie case of conduct violative of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, the burden was on the Respondent to come forward with credible evidence, in support of its contention that the layoffs were due to economic conditions, suffiucient to rebut the prima facie case.4We agree that the Respondent has failed to meet this burden, and that the Trial Examiner's findings are supported by the preponderance of t...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
