Harry Heisler And Agnes Heisler, Co-partners, Doing Business As Heiler Manufacturing Company And United Farm Equipment And Metal Workers Of America, Local 230, C. I. O.1, 1114 (1947)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Harry Heisler And Agnes Heisler, Co-partners, Doing Business As Heiler Manufacturing Company And United Farm Equipment And Metal Workers Of America, Local 230, C. I. O.1, 1114 (1947)
In the Matter of HARRY HEISLER AND AGNES HEISLER, CO-PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS AS HEILER MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT AND METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 230,C. I. O.1 Case No. 18-C-1226.-Decided December 17, 1946 Mr. Clarence A. Meter, for the Board.Messrs. Swisher, Cohrt, and Swisher, by Mr. L. J. Cohrt, of Waterloo, Iowa, for the respondent.Messrs. Meyers, Meyers and Rothstein, by Mr. David B. Rothstein, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Harold Fischer, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the Union.Mr. Oscar Geltman, of counsel to the Board.DECISION AND ORDER On July 26, 1946, Trial Examiner W. P. Webb issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.Thereafter, the respondents and the attorney for the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the exception hereinafter noted.The Trial Examiner concluded that even if Heisler threatened to sell the respondents' plant, as witnesses for the Board testified, such statement was a tactical maneuver which was justified in view of the 1By a motion granted by the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing, the complaint and other formal documents were amended by adding the phrase 'Local 230' to the name of the Union. 1114 1115 Union's ultimatum that it would continue to strike unless the respondent executed a retroactive wage agreement. Like the Trial Examiner, we credit Heisler's denial that he made such a statement.However, we find it unnecessary to determine, in view of Heisler's credible testimony, whether such a statement if made constituted an unfair labor practice.ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein against Harry Heisler and Agnes Heisler, co-partners, doing business as Heisler Manufacturing Company, Waterloo, Iowa, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Clarence A. Meter, for the Board.Messrs. Swisher, Cohrt, and Swisher, by Mr. L. J. Cohrt, of Waterloo, Iowa, fbr the Respondents.Messrs. Meyers, Meyers and Rothstein, by Mr. David B. Rothstein, of Chicago,Ill., and Mr. Harold Fischer, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the Union.STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local 230, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint, dated April 10, 1946, against Harry Heisler and Agnes Heisler, co-partners, doingbusiness as Heisler Manufacturing Company, Waterloo, Iowa, herein called the Respondents, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended charge, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondents and the Union.With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended during the hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that from about January 4, 1946, the Respondents questioned their employees concerning their union activities and affiliation; advised, urged, and warned them to refrain from assisting, becoming members of or remaining members of, the Union; gave them wage increases and attempted to introduce new piece-work rates during the time when the Union was seeking to bargain collectively; advised them that the Respondents would never sign a contract with the Union; urged and advised them to abandon their strike; used vile, profane, and abusive language while talking to them; physically assaulted them; threatened to sell the plant and machinery; and sold and removed machinery from the plant; (2) that on, and at all times after January 8, 1946, the Respondents refused, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate unit, although on and prior to that date, a majority of the employees in such unit had designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining; (3) that on or about January 12, 19...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
