International Business Machines Corp., 344 (1974)

Extract

---

International Business Machines Corp., 344 (1974)

International Business Machines Corporation and Albert D. Tencza. Case 3-CA-5004

October 25, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND

PENELLO

On June 17, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the altached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs and the Respondent filed cross-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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.

ORDER

Pursuant 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 complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.

i The Charging Party 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, 91

NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings . In addition, we deny the Charging Party's motion to reopen the record inasmuch as it only addresses itself to a limited aspect of the Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolutions.

2 The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Tencza was discharged in part for engaging in protected concerted activity which consisted of discussions with Respondent which potentially could have led to financial benefits for Tencza and Ogden. We disagree. The record establishes that the discussions between Tencza and his manager at the Endicott facility, wh...

See the full content of this document

---