International Filling Co., 1591 (1984)

National Labor Relations Board

Docket Number: 10-CA-19084

Linked as:

Extract

International Filling Co., 1591 (1984)

INTERNATIONAL FILLING CO.

International Filling Company, Inc. and United Food & Commercial Workers, District Union 433,

AFL-CIO & CLC. Case 10-CA-19084

12 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS

HUNTER AND DENNIS

On 2 December 1983 Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision.

The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a threemember panel.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions2 only to the extent consistent with this decision, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.

1. The judge concluded that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the refusal of its president, John Gibbs, to loan money to employee Johnny Hall. In so concluding, the judge relied on his finding that the Respondent had a past practice of making loans to employees. We disagree with the finding of this violation. In so doing, we note i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resoilutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).

We have carefillly examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.

I We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec.

8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employee Johnny Hall about his union activities. In so doing, we additionally rely on the fact that, during the same conversation in which the interrogation occurred, the Respondent's president unlawfully threatened that he was going to 'get' everybody who was behind the Union. Further, we find it unnecessary to pass on the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)() of the Act by interrogating employee Benton because the finding of such an additional violation would be cumulative and would not materially affect the Order. Chairman Dotson would not find that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated Hall. Hall initiated the conversation with the Respondent's president. Gibbs, and volunteered that he was 'a hundred per cent' for the Union. A...

See the full content of this document