Emerson Electric Co., 75 (1969)

Extract

---

Emerson Electric Co., 75 (1969)

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY

Emerson Electric Company, and International Union,

Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO.

Cases 9-CA-4528, 9-CA-4726, and 9-RC-7658

June 26, 1969

DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF

ELECTION

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND JENKINS

On February 24, 1969, Trial Examiner Stanley N.

Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, and recommended that such allegations of the complaint be dismissed, that the objections to the election be overruled and the results of the election be certified, as further set forth in the attached Decision.

Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel.

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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modification noted below.' ORDER

Pursuant 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 the Respondent, Emerson Electric Company, Russellville, Kentucky, its In the light of all the evidence relating thereto, we adopt the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the complaint allegation based on an alleged statement by Personnel Manager Black to the effect that he would regard mere union talk by certain employees during working time to be solicitation prohibited by Respondent's rule However, in so doing, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's rationale that such remark, if made, would in any event not be unlawful 75 officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF

ELECTION

It is hereby certified, that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for International Union,

Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, as amended.

MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part:

I do not agree with my colleagues adoption of the Trial Examiner's conclusion that employee James Martin was discharged for nondiscriminatory reasons.

Martin was allegedly discharged for giving a woman employee a pair of gloves for which he should have charged her 83 cents. Respondent conceded that but for this one incident which precipitated his discharge, Martin had been a good employee. The record discloses that not only had Martin been active on behalf of the Union but that Respondent's Personnel Manager Black, who terminated him, was aware of his union activities and admittedly testified that . . . 'And I went on and told her [Ruth McGuire, Martin's sister] that I had picked up information that her brother James Ralph Martin was active in the union.'' There is also testimony in the record that foremen had given similar gloves without charge to women employees on other occasions. Nor can it be ignored that Respondent sought to restrict union solicitation and that in the process it restricted Martin, a tool crib attendant, from leaving the toolroom without informing his foreman where he was going and how long he would be. When the above facts are considered in their totality, I am not persuaded that Martin was in fact discharged for his minor dereliction on the job but conclude that the incident was seized on as a pretext for his discharge.

Accordingly, I would find that he was discriminatorily discharged.

'In light of Personnel Manager Black 's admission, I find incredible the Trial Examiner's conclusion (TXD) that Respondent had no knowledge of Martin's union activity.

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUES STANLEY N. OHLRAUM, Trial Examiner: This consolidated proceeding' under the National Labor Relations Act as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.;

'The charge in Case 9-CA-4528 was filed by the above Union on November 21, 1967, resulting in a complaint ('Complaint No....

See the full content of this document

---