Extract
Firmat Manufacturing Corp., 1213 (1981)
FIRMAT MANUFACTURING CORP. 1213
Firmat Manufacturing Corp. and Louis A. Martinez and Ann Columbo and District 65, Distributive Workers of America. Cases 22-CA-9279, 22CA-9288, 22-CA-9387, 22-CA-9415, and 22RC-7923April 24, 1981 DECISION AND ORDEROn October 15, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. ' 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, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,3 as modified herein.The Administrative Law Judge sustained the challenge to James Callahan's ballot on the basis that he was primarily a student and was not eligible to vote in the representation election as an employee within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. In so doing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent's relationship with Callahan was an educational rather than an employment relationship.4No exceptions were filed to this finding.5The Administrative Law Judge further found that James Callahan, while not eligible to vote in the representation election, was entitled to reinstatement with backpay as a result of his discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Callahan's discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), contending that, based upon the Administrative Law Judge's findings, Callahan was not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act and was not entitled to the protections of the Act. We agree with Respondent's exception only insofar as Callahan is not an employee within the meaning of Section I Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.:' In accordance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation.250 NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay due based on the formula set forth therein.See Towne Chevroler, 230 NLRB 479 (1977).' In the absence of exceptions thereto Chairman Fanning adopts pro forma the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Callahan's relationship with Respondent was an educational rather than an employment relationship.255 NLRB No. 1532(3) of the Act.6We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, however, that in order to remedy fully Respondent's violations of the Act, it is necessary to restore the status quo ante by ordering the reinstatement of James Callahan.As set forth more fully by the Administrative Law Judge, in January 1980, Respondent's employees, upset with their working conditions, attempted to meet with Respondent's president to discuss the problems. When these efforts were not successful, the employees decided to meet with a representative of the Union. The following day Respondent's supervisor interrogated an employee about the union meeting. Two days later Respondent's president called a plantwide meeting and inquired as to which employes were involved with the Union, solicited grievances, told the employees they did not need a union, and threatened to close the shop. Respondent's president then, inter alia, granted a wage increase, an extra holiday, longer breaktime, and overtime pay. Respondent then proceeded to discharge one employee the day the employee signed a union authorization card, decrease the overtime of another employee who complained about the discharge, and threaten to fire other employees. During the month that James Callahan was hired and the following month, Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees, threatened to fire employes, denied overtime and a wage increase, discriminatorily rearranged working hours, promulgated a broad no-solicitation rule, and threatened to close the shop if the Union won the election. Furthermore, Respondent unlawfully discharged five employees, in addition to Callahan, for the...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
