Gabel Tank Co., 902 (1967)

Extract

---

Gabel Tank Co., 902 (1967)

Herman Gabel, d/b/a Gabel Tank Company and Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2299

July 28, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

JENKINS AND ZAGORIA

On April 5, 1967, Trial Examiner Leo F.

Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices 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 also found that it was unnecessary to resolve other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint since they were, at most, cumulative to other violations of the Act. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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 powers in connection with this case to a threemember 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. i AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Delete the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law 5, 6, and 7, the present Conclusion of Law 8 being renumbered as 5.

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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,

Herman Gabel, d/b/a Gabel Tank Company, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified:

1. Delete from the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order paragraph I (a), and reletter the remaining paragraphs thereof.

2. Delete paragraph 2(b) from the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and substiti,ite the following therefor:

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

'(b) Restore to all of its employees the paid coffeebreaks withdrawn from them on October 21, 1966.' 3. De!ete from the Appendix of the Trial Examiner's Decision the first indented paragraph.

4. Add the following as the last indented paragraph of the Appendix of the Trial Examiner's Decision:

WE WILL restore to all of our employees the paid coffeebreaks withdrawn from them on October 21, 1966.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the amended complaint as to which no violations have been found are hereby dismissed.

I In view of the General Counsel's assurances at the heanng that he was not seeking a 'bargaining order,' and because the acts of Respondent prior to the certification which are alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(5) are herein found violative of other provisions of the Act, and are, in our opinion, adequately remedied in our Order, we deem it unnecessary to pass on the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) by such conduct Accordingly, we are dismissing the 8(a)(5) allegations of the amended complaint TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner. This proceeding was heard in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on December 15, 1966, and January 5, 1967, on the complaint of General Counsel, as amended, and the answer, as amended, of Herman Gabel, d/b/a Gabel Tank Company,' herein called the Respondent.2 The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act The parties waived oral argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered.

Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is an individual proprietorship with its principal place of business at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, w...

See the full content of this document

---