Extract
Hanley Dawson Chevrolet, Inc., 944 (1967)
Hanley Dawson Chevrolet, Inc. and Automotive Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.), Independent.
Case 7-CA-5771TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEDecember 19, 1967 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSBROWN AND JENKINSOn September 8, 1967, Trial Examiner Milton Janus 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. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.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, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,I 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 the Respondent, Hanley Dawson Chevrolet, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.2 ' We adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and publishing an oral nosolicitation rule which allegedly prohibited union solicitation and organization at any time and at any place on Respondent's property. We rest our adoption, however, only on the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent restricted the rule to solicitation on working time and not to other times. As so restricted, the rule was lawful.2 Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order that part thereof which reads 'to be furnished' and substitute therefor 'on forms provided ......MILTON JANUS, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the Na...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
