Extract
Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 1065 (1966)
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 14, 1965, Trial Examiner Rosanna A. Blake issued her 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's 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 powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].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 the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modification noted below.2 [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 'The Respondent excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established practice, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).2 In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, we need not rely on her interpretation of the Supreme Court's opinion in International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.) v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731, as set forth in footnote 41 of the Trial Examiner's Decision.TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEUpon charges filed on February 11 and May 12, 1965, by the Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, the General Counsel, acting through the Regional Director for Region 9, issued complaints on March 31 and June 21, 1965 . On the latter date, the Regional Director also issued an order consolidating the two cases for 157 NLRB No. 94.hearing The complaints alleged that Respondent had engaged in conduct which violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act In its answers, Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaints, such as the commerce allegations, but denied having committed any unfair labor practice Thereafter, pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Rosanna A Blake at Huntington, West Virginia, on August 4, 5, 6, and 17, 1965All parties were represented and were given full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs The parties waived oral argument and no briefs were filed Upon consideration of the entire record and on my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACTI THE BLSINESS OF RESPONDENT, THE LABOR ORG4NIZATION INVOLVED Gissel Packing Company, Inc, herein called the Company or the Respondent, is a West Virginia corporation with its principal office and place of business in Huntington, West Virginia It is engaged in the slaughtering, processing, and nonretall sale of beef and pork products In the 12 months prior to the issuance of each of the complaints each a representative period, Respondent had a direct inflow of products and livestock in interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000, which was purchased and shipped directly to its plant from points outside the State of West Virginia Upon the foregoing undisputed facts, Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act It is also undisputed and I find that Food Store Employees Union, Local No 347,Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICESA The issues The complaints allege that Respondent engaged in conduct, such as interrogation, threats, and surveillance, which constituted interference, restraint, and coercion, that it discharged two employees because of their union membership and activity, and that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union which represented a majority of its employees in an appropriate ba' gaining unit In turn, Respondent cortended that it had not engaged in any conduct which violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act, stated that the employees were not discharged but quit, and asserted that it refused to bargain with the Union because it doubted both the Union s majority and the appropria...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
