Extract
Furr's Inc., 387 (1966)
DECISION AND ORDER
.On July 14, 1965, Trial Examiner JamesT. Barker issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had 157 NLRB No. 38. ' , ' , 221-374-66-vol. 157-26 :388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning 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. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not ,engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a ,brief in support thereof.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].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 brief, and the entire record in this case,2 and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as modified herein.3We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Section '8 (a) (5). However, unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not rely on Fred Snow et al., d/b/a Snow eC Sons, 134 NLRB 709, affd. 308 F. 2d ,687' (C.A. 9).4 The record establishes that shortly before and after the Union made its original request for recognition on October 8, 1964,Respondent's Supervisors Amador and Harrison engaged in extensive 8(a) (1) conduct. This included Amador's attendance at a union meeting, his interrogation of various employees concerning their union activities, and his threats of possible unemployment and cuts in working hours should the Union be successful. Harrison made threats to various employees of impending discharge and eventual replacement, and of harassment and deterioration of working conditions in the event that the Union gained recognition. In addition, Harrison, for the first time, began keeping a notebook in which were recorded the mistakes of the employees, to be used, he claimed, as justification to the Union for discharging employees.Respondent contends that Amador and Harrison were acting without its authorization and approval and that it had in fact cautioned them to be completely neutral toward the Union.,' Moreover, Respond1 Certain inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's Decision have been corrected.S The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the facts and issues in the case are adequately presented in the record and the brief.8 The Board finds that Arnold's speech on October 13 did not violate Section 8(a) (1) and dismisses that portion of the complaint which is based thereon.4 The record does not establish that Respondent 's filing of an RM petition on October 12 was in bad faith.5 Ellington was notified by employee Aaron of Harrison 's notebook ; shortly thereafter he made Harrison get rid of the book.FURR'S, INC. 389 ent contends that any suggestions of union animus were rebutted by conversations and meetings of Store Manager Ellington and Vice President Arnold with the employees held prior to and during the Union's organizational campaign at which Respondent's neutrality was constantly stressed.We find that Amador's and Harrison's illegal activity, for which the Respondent is responsible, made the holding of a fair election impossible and reflected a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle. Under the principle of Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, •enfd. as modified 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), we therefore hold that Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union was violative of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act Further, effectuation of the policies of the Act requires a remedial request, in order to remedy properly the Respondent's other unfair labor practices. Therefore, we shall order the Respondent to bargain, upon request, with the Union both to remedy its violation of Section 8(a) (5) and its violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.6 [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following modifications:[1. Delete paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, renumbering paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) as new pa...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
