Extract
Fairlawn Chateau, 81 (1975)
FAIRLAWN CHATEAU & W. & D. ENTERPRISES Akron Convalescent Care, Inc. d/b/a Fairlawn Chateau and W. & D. Enterprises, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 698,
AFL-CIO. Cases 8-CA-8894 and 8-RC-9750October 23, 1975 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERSFANNING AND JENKINSOn June 26, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her 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 the Respondent, Akron Convalescent Care, Inc. d/b/a Fairlawn Chateau and W. & D. Enterprises, Inc., Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order.DECISIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASEANNE F. SCHLEZINGER, Administrative Law Judge:Upon a charge filed on January 23, 1975, by Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 698, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Charging Party or the Union, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 8 (Cleveland, Ohio), issued a complaint and notice of hearing on March 13, 1975, and an order consolidating cases and notice of consolidated hearing on April 9, 1975.The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges in substance that Akron Convalescent Care, Inc., d/b/a Fairlawn Chateau, and W. & D. Enterprises, Inc., herein referred to respectively as Fairlawn Chateau and W. & D.and jointly as the Respondent, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise -of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, by interrogating and threatening employees, creating the impression of surveillance of the union activities of its employees, impliedly promising benefits to employees who 221 NLRB No. 2581 refrained from or abandoned membership and interest in the Union, and announcing and granting a wage increase in order to undermine and discourage support of the Union; discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees by discharging Lauretta Kirby and Virginia Secreto, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate them, because of their union activities; and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.The Respondent, in its answer duly filed, as amended at the hearing, admits some of the factual allegations of the complaint, but denies that it has committed the alleged unfair labor practices.Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before me at Cleveland, Ohio, on April 16 and 17, 1975. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, on or about May 19, 1975, the General Counsel filed a brief, and the Respondent filed a brief and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have been fully considered.Upon the entire record in this proceeding and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:FINDINGS OF FACT1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Fairlawn Chateau is now, and has been at all times material herein, an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business located in Akron, Ohio, where it is engaged in the proprietary operation of a nursing home.Annually, in the co...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
