Extract
Harrawood's, Inc., 1136 (1971)
Harrawood's, Inc., and Harrawood Brothers, Inc. and Construction, Building Material, Ice & Coal,
Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Industrial Laundry & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen,Yardmen & Allied Workers, Local Union No. 682, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Congress of Independent Unions,Local #99, Party to the Contract.Congress of Independent Unions, and Congress of Independent Unions, Local #99 and Construction,Building Material, Ice & Coal, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Industrial Laundry & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, Yardmen & Allied Workers, Local Union No. 682, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases 14-CA-5756 and 14-CB-2099 wood's, Inc., and Harrawood Brothers, Inc., Ellisville,Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order as so modified:1. Substitute the following paragraph for paragraph I (a)(5) of the recommended Order:'(5) Withdrawing or withholding recognition from Operating Engineers Local 513, Teamsters Local 682, and Laborers Local 110, as the exclusive representatives of its employees in the respective appropriate units covered by the collective-bargaining agreements of these Unions.' 2. In paragraph l(b)(3) of the recommended Order change the words 'appropriate unit' to read 'appropriate units' and omit the words which follow:'and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.' 3. Substitute the attached Appendix A for the Trial Examiner's Appendix.November 3, 1971 DECISION AND ORDERBy MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDYOn May 14, 1971, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.' Respondent Employers filed joint exceptions to the said Decision and a brief in support of 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 powers in connection with this proceeding 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 proceeding,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.3 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 as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent Employers, Harrai Local Union No. 513, International Union of Operating Engineers,AFL-CIO, and Local Union Nos 42, 53, and 110 and the Eastern Missouri Laborers District Council, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, were Intervenors herein 2 The Respc.sdents' request for oral argument is denied because the record, the exceptions, and the brief of Respondents adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 3 The Trial Examiner found that a Respondent Employer, through its membership in the Site Improvement Association, had collectivebargaining agreements with the Operating Engineers, Laborers, and Teamsters in three appropriate units, but that in effect these separate appropriate units constituted a composite unit made up of all employees of the Respondent Employer engaged in asphalt paving work. The Respondent Employer he found to be 'the two Respondent corporations collectively,' that is, Harrawood's, Inc., and Harrawood Brothers, Inc, who by reason of interdependence, integrated operations, common ownership of stock, and common labor policy are a single employer. He found 8(a)(5) and ( 1) violations based on Respondent Employers' refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with the aforesaid Unions, whereas it appears that the violation was one of withdrawing or withholding recognition fr...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
