Extract
Griffin Inns, 199 (1977)
GRIFFIN INNS
Griffin Inns, Owner and Operator of Sheraton Motor Inn (Woodhaven, Michigan) and Local No. 24,Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees, Cooks and Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-12254April 22, 1977 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHEROn July 16, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party, the Union in this proceeding, filed exceptions.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the refusal-to-bargain allegation of the complaint. The Union contends that in November 1975 Respondent conditioned collective bargaining on the Union's dropping unfair labor practice charges against it, and that this conduct constituted a refusal to bargain. We agree.The Administrative Law Judge found that, at a meeting between Respondent and union representatives on November 3, 1975, Respondent's representative, Gehl, told Union Negotiator Panos, 'If you I The Administrative Law Judge, discrediting Union Negotiator Panos, found that Respondent's manager, Rogula, did not put offbargaining with Panos by telling him to await the outcome of a decertification petition filed with the Board. No exceptions were filed to this finding and we adopt itpro forma. We do not agree, however, with the Administrative Law Judge's alternative theory that, even if Panos were credited, no violation could be found in Rogula's statement. Sec. II, C, 3, par. 3. In view of our proforma adoption of the principal finding, the Administrative Law Judge's alternative holding is gratuitous.2 Star Manufacturing Company, Division of Star Forge, Inc., 220 NLRB 582, 587 (1975).3 Our dissenting colleague's view ofboth the facts of this case and of the relevant law is askew. In the first place, the complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act both by assisting employees in the preparation and circulation of a decertification petition and by its overall failure and refusal to bargain with the Union on and after August 5, 1975. As recounted by the Administrative Law Judge, Union Representative Panos testified, without contradiction, that on November 3, 1975, Respondent expressly conditioned negotiations on the Union's withdrawal of unfair labor practice charges. It cannot be doubted that the then pending charges were a matter of concern to Respondent. In fact, the Administrative Law Judge found a violation of Sec. 8(aXI) of the Act predicated on Respondent's earlier threat directed to the employee who had initiated the charges. Thereafter, although our colleague intimates otherwise, Respondent failed to respond to Panos' requests for a meeting.We are puzzl...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
