Extract
Glar-Ban Corp., 1861 (1968)
GLAR-BAN CORPORATION Glar-Ban Corporation and District Lodge 76, Local #1053, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-13370
September 6, 1968 DECISION AND ORDERBy CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWNOn June 4, 1968, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had_ engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation 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. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to certain portions of the Decision of the Trial Examiner and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed cross-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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Glar-Ban Corporation,Buffalo, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.i Exceptions have been taken to some of the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner which were based to a large extent on demeanor of witnesses It is the Board's policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's 172 NLRB No. 2221861 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 are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEDAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to charges filed on November 20, 1967, and amended on January 24, 1968, by District Lodge 76, Local # 1053, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, a complaint issued January 29, 1967, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by interrogating employees, offering or promising benefits, threatening reprisals, and encouraging employees to form their own committee to negotiate with Respondent. The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by laying off or discharging Sylvester English, Dominic Tripoli, and John Hoffman on November 17, 1967, and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing since November 7, 1967, to bargain with the Union as the representative of its production and maintenance employees. In its answer Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.A hearing was held before me in Buffalo, New York, on March 11 and 12, 1968. At the close of the hearing oral argument was waived and the parties were given leave to file briefs which have been received from the Respondent.Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a New York corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business at Cheektowaga, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of aircraft lighting and instrumentation systems and related products. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, in the course of its operations Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $20...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
