Extract
Edward H. McLaughlin, Etc., 586 (1962)
welfare funds were in jeopardy and when Maupai offered to guarantee the payments agreement failed because Pierson 's request for a withdrawal of the charge was countered by Maupai's request for assurance against a work stoppage on the next job.
I therefore find that Local 825 neither caused the work stoppage at the Manor on July 8 by inducing or encouraging Esposito and Williams to refuse to perform services nor that it induced or encouraged them to continue to refuse to perform any services. To make either finding I would have to reject in toto the testimony of Esposito, Williams, and Pierson, not on the ground that it is contradicted by other testimony or by inconsistent independent evidence but on the ground that, as members and officers of a labor organization , their testimony is unworthy of belief. My rejection of that proposition is utter.I find no evidence to support the allegation that Respondent induced or encouraged any employee of Ernst to engage in a strike or a refusal to perform any services in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (1 ) (B) of the Act.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.2. R. G. Maupai Co., Inc., and John Ochs are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3. Respondent has not induced or encouraged any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal to perform any services nor has Respondent threatened, coerced, or restrained any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, in either case, for an object proscribed by or in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.[Recommendations omitted from publication.] Edward H. McLaughlin, McLaughlin Industrial Distributors,Inc., Contract Builders Hardware , Inc., and Union Hardware & Metal Company, all formerly Union Hardware & Metal Company and Warehouse, Processing & Distribution Workers' Union, Local 26. Case No. 01-CA-4054. January 06, 1962 DECISION AND ORDEROn October 16, 1961, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents, the General Counsel, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof.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 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, the briefs, and the entire record' ' The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately pre,,ents the issues and positions of the parties 135 NLRB No. 60.EDWARD H. McLAUGHLIN, ETC. 587 in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications in the portions of the Intermediate Report entitled 'The Remedy' and 'Recommended Order.' The Trial Examiner recommended, in order to remedy the violations of Section 8(a) (3), that the Respondents be directed to offer to the discriminatees immediate transfer and hire in accordance with the provisions of the August 22, 1960, contract 2 relating to hire and transfer of employees or such modifications thereof as shall be agreed upon in collective bargaining with the Un...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
