W. E. Horne D/b/a W. E. Horne Engineering Co1mpany And Machinists' District Lodge 94, International Association Of Machinists (a. F. L.) And Employee Association, 742 (1945)

Extract

---

W. E. Horne D/b/a W. E. Horne Engineering Co1mpany And Machinists' District Lodge 94, International Association Of Machinists (a. F. L.) And Employee Association, 742 (1945)

In the Matter of W. E. HORNE D/B/A W. E. HORNE ENGINEERING CO1MPANY and MACHINISTS' DISTRICT LODGE 94, INTERNATIONAL AssoCIATION OF MACHINISTS (A. F. L.) and EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION Case No. 21-C-2420.-Decided April 26, 1945 DECISION AND ORDER On November 8, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No exceptions were filed by the Union. No request for oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any of the parties. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's brief and exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions noted below:

1. The respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the respondent is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act, and to various findings in support thereof. We have considered the respondent's exceptions and are of the opinion that they are without merit.' We affirm the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions.2 1The respondent excepts, inter alia, to the finding that his plant 'is not a general machine shop.' Whether or not the plant is characterized as a general machine shop, the fact remains that all his dealings have been limited to three companies engaged in commerce. The respondent further excepts to the characterization of his customers as 'principals,' claiming that they are 'bailors.' Assuming that this is so, it does not affect our conclusion. It also is claimed that the evidence fails to establish that cessation or interruption of the operations of the respondent would affect the operations of his customers.

Upon the entire record, we are satisfied and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that cessation of the respondent's operations would seriously affect those of his customers. In this connection, we credit the testimony of Daniel Gage, a representative of Aircraft Accessories Corporation, that if the respondent should stop producing, this customer could not make 742 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act by questioning his employees regarding their union membersh...

See the full content of this document

---