Extract
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 524 (1962)
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 23, 1960, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the 1 An erratum was issued on May 24, 1960.136 NLRB No. 44.INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 525Respondent Union had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the brief and the entire record in the case, and finds no merit in the exceptions. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations with the modification indicated below 2 [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM , dissenting :Even assuming that the language on the picket sign after October 1, 1959, somehow falls within the second proviso to Section 8(b) (7) (C), the evidence in this case, which includes other union conduct as well as the language of the picket signs, establishes that recognition was an object of Respondent's picketing after November 13, 1959, the effective date of Section 8(b) (7) (C). The evidence also establishes that Respondent picketed for recognition for more than a reasonable time after November 13, 1959, without a petition having been filed.' Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Crown Cafeteria, 135 NLRB 1183, we would find, contrary to our colleagues and the Trial Examiner, that Respondent's picketing after November 13, 1959, violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.2 Our holding herein is predicated on the criteria we recently announced in the Crown Cafeteria case, 135 NLRB 1183 Hence we find it unnecessary to pass upon that portion of the Intermediate Report B, ( 3) entitled 'Did Respondent meet the conditions of immunity of the excepting proviso, even though it be interpreted to embrace a subjective test as well?' 3 See Stan-Jay Auto Parts and Accessories Corporation, 127 NLRB 958, 960 INTERMEDIATE REPORTSTATEMENT OF THE CASEThis case, with all parties represented, has been considered on the basis of the consolidated complaint of the General Counsel and the answer and the motions to dismiss filed by Respondent . The parties, by agreement, have waived a hearing and have stipulated to a set of facts as the basis of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' 'The chronology is as follows : In Case No. 10-CB-1124, the Employer filed a charge and an amended charge on July 9 and 27 , 1959, respectively, alleging a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, and on the basis thereof, the General Counsel, on August 20, 1959, issued a complaint alleging the same violation . On November 23, 1959, the Employer filed the charge in Case No. 10-CP-2, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (7) ; and on December 4, 1959 , an ord...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
