Extract
Hotel Holiday Inn de Isla Verde, 496 (1981)
Isla Verde Hotel Corporation d/b/a Hotel Holiday AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Inn de Isla Verde and Asociacion de Empleados del Casino del Holiday Inn de Isla Verde. Substitute the following for the Administrative Cases 24-CA-4269 and 24-CA-4381 Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 5:
'5. By discharging and refusing to reinstate December 4, 1981 unfair labor practice strikers, Respondent has vioDECISION AND ORDER lated Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act.' ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor ReOn June 15, 1981, Administrative Law JudgeGeOn June 15, 1981, Administrhatthive Law Judge lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended George F. Mclnerny issued the attached Decision Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modiin this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ed eow and here ord s t t Respondent, fled below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,ceptions and a supporting brief. Isla Verde Hotel Corporation d/b/a Hotel Holiday Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the y Pursuantto theprovisions of Section 3(b) of the Inn de Isla Verde, Carolina, Puerto Rico, its offiNational Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-, - cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take thetional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-tional Labor Relations Board has delegated Its au- action set forth in the said recommended Order, as thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. so modified:The Board has considered the record and the at1. Substitute the following for paragraphl(g):tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief 1 S t f fn 1. '(g) In any other manner interfering with, reand has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise ofstraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge andd t m S n 7 of t A .'~~~~~,. ,. >~~~, , rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.' to adopt his recommended Order, as modifiedth a,23 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):herein. 3'(a) Upon request, bargain with Asociacion de ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Empleados del Casino del Holiday Inn de Isla Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to Verde as the representative of employees in the foloverrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- lowing unit admitted to be appropriate:bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. All croupier employees of Respondent emInc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. ployed at its hotel, exclusive of all other emMembers Fanning and Jenkins agree with the Administrative Law ployees, office clerical employees, guards and Judge's finding that the strike which occurred herein was in response to all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of serious and aggravated unfair labor practices, but, for the reasons separately stated by them in The Dow Chemical Company, 244 NLRB 1060, the Act.' 1061, fn. 8 (1979), they would find the strike to be protected activity regardless of the seriousness of Respondent's unlawful conduct. 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the We find it unnecessary to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's specu- Administrative Law Judge.lation that Respondent regarded Felix Ramos as more competent and versatile than other employees.We note that, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's statement e shal conform the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusion of Law that the record does not indicate that the union officers told Assistant 5 with his findings by inserting 'discharging and' between 'By' and 'reManager Jose Alvarez what they were planning to do, Alvarez testified fusing.' they had told him their plans in the event they did not receive the bonus We note that the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted that night. We also note that the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently pars. (e) and 2(a) of his recommended Order from his notice. We shall stated that Ruben Ramos testified he had seen Rafael Castillo on the modify the notice to conform with the Administrative Law Judges recnight of September 12, 1980, talking with David Maza, when Ruben ommended Order, as modified herein.Ramos actually testified that Hector Rivera told him he (Rivera) had In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge's make-whole remedy seen Castillo talking with Maza. These errors, to which Respondent ex- with respect to the discharged unfair labor practice strikers, we note that cepted and which we correct accordingly, do not affect the Administrat he remedy shall be computed according to the principles enunciated in tive Law Judge's conclusions or o...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
