Herron Yarn Mills, Inc., 553 (1967)

Extract

---

Herron Yarn Mills, Inc., 553 (1967)

HERRON YARN MILLS, INC.

Herron Yarn Mills, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 282.

Case 26-CA-2609.

June 19,1967 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING

AND BROWN

On March 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Frederick U.

Reel 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. The Trial Examiner failed to find violations with respect to certain other allegations in the complaint.

Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the 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 and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications:

The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising benefits to employees if they would abandon the Union and by threatening reprisals if they did not.

We also agree with his further finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to furnish the Union the dates of hire of employees in the bargaining unit, and by withdrawing from agreements made during the course of bargaining, thereby causing the strike which commenced on November 21, 1966. However, the Trial Examiner dismissed the allegation that Respondent's conduct throughout negotiations established its overall bad faith in further violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.

On the basis of the evidence supporting the foregoing findings and its entire course of conduct, we are persuaded that Respondent approached the bargaining table, not with a sincere purpose to reach agreement, but with an intent to prolong negotiations until the removal of the court injunction requiring it to barga...

See the full content of this document

---