Extract
I-O Services, Inc., 566 (1975)
1-0 Services, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA11071
June 17, 1975 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERSFANNING AND JENKINSOn December 27, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Jennie M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief answering the Respondent's exceptions and supporting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, 1-0 Services, Inc.,Lathrup Village, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.I The Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's refusal to order the General Counsel to make available to counsel for the Respondent the pretrial affidavit of witness Vikki Kapanowsla. The request was made after the Respondent's counsel was well into his cross-exammation of the witness. Thus, the request was viewed as untimely. See WalshLumpkin Drug Company, 129 NLRB 294, 295-296 (1960). In the circumstances of this case, we do not fmd that the Administrative Law Judge exceeded the bounds of her discretion in so ruling. The Respondent does not specifically allege in what manner it was prejudiced by the ruling.Assuming that the Respondent proposed to use the affidavit for purposes of impeachment, we note that the witness' testimony was in many respects merely cumulative and fully corroborated by other witnesses, including witnesses presented by the Respondent.DECISIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASEJENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: Upon due notice, this proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was tried before me at Detroit, Michigan, on July 25, 26, 30, and 31 and August 1, 1974.1 Based on a charge filed on April 15, a complaint issued on May 31, presenting allegations that 1-0Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent, committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer denying that it committed the violations of the Act alleged. Representatives of all parties were present and participated in the hearing.Based on the entire record, including my observations of the witnesses and after due consideration of the arguments presented at the close of the hearing and in the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
