Extract
Inland Empire Meat Co., 500 (1978)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inland Empire Meat Company and Harold E. Finnigan. Case 31-CA-7025March 30, 1978 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERSPENELLO AND TRUESDALEOn January 27, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his 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 the Respondent, Inland Empire Meat Company, Colton, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.DECISIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASEROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The unfair labor practice charge in this case was filed on May 3, 1977, by Harold E. Finnigan. The charge alleged that Inland Empire Meat Company, herein called the Respondent, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.Specifically, the charge alleged that the Respondent had terminated Finnigan on or about November 15, 1976, because of his union membership and activities, and that the Respondent had refused to reinstate him since that date. The charge further alleged that the Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 235 NLRB No. 72 by terminating Finnigan 'and by other acts and conduct' which were not specified. (See G.C. Exh. I(a).) A complaint and notice of hearing was issued on June 22, 1977, by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board. The complaint alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to discharge Finnigan on November 15, 1976, because of his union activities. It further alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating Finnigan on that date and by failing and refusing to reinstate him since that time because he had joined or assisted the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 166, herein called the Union, or because he had engaged in other protected concerted activities. (See G.C. Exh. I(c).) The Respondent timely filed an answer to the complaint and denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The Re3pondent affirmatively alleged that Finnigan had quit his employment with the Respondent and had not been discharged. (See G.C. Exh. I(e).) Thereafter, on August 8, 1977, the Respondent's attorney wrote a letter to the Regional Director for Region 31 concerning the verbal notice given by counsel for the General Counsel of his intention to amend the complaint to add certain further specific allegations of Section 8(a)(1) conduct. The Respondent took the position that the proposed amendments did not relate to the charge previously filed by Finnigan, and further that the refusal of counsel for the General Counsel to reveal the names of the witnesses who would testify concerning those allegations necessitated at least a 30-day postponement of the hearing scheduled for September 6, 1977, in order to obtain information for the Respondent's defense. (See G.C. Exh.I(f).) On August 11, 1977, the Acting Regional Director for Region 31 issued an order denying continuance. (See G.C.Exh. I(g).) An ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
