Extract
Essex International, Inc., 260 (1974)
Essex International, Inc. and William M. Bell and Charles Bebout and David N. Davis. Cases 25CA-5984, 25-CA-5984-2, and 25-CA-6073 FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION September 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY. AND PENELLO On May 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions in the form of a brief in opposition to the Decision and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.ORDERPursuant 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Essex International, Inc.,Marion, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.DECISIONFRANK H. ITKIN. Administrative Law Judge. These consolidated cases were tried before me at Marion, Indiana, on March 12 and 13, 1974. Unfair labor practice charges were filed by employee William M. Bell on December 4, 1973, by employee Charles Bebout on December 6, 1973, and by employee David N. Davis on January 30, 1974. A consolidated unfair labor practice complaint issued on January 29 and on February 8, 1974. The issue presented is whether Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees Bell, Bebout, and Davis on December 3, 1973. Upon the entire record before me, including the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by counsel, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:The consolidated complaints allege, the answers admit, and I find and conclude that Respondent Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of rods and related products at its plant in Marion, Indiana; that during the prior 12-month period Respondent Company purchased and delivered to its Marion plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported directly from locations outside of Indiana; that during this sam...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
