Extract
J.J Security, Inc., 1290 (1980)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. J. Security, Inc. and Milton P. Hanson and Security Personnel Collective Association (S.P.C.A.) and Ronald Bess. Cases 30-CA-4851 and 30CA-4922September 30, 1980 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND PENELL.O On May 28, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of 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,I findings, 2 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, J. J. Security,Inc., LaCrosse, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.' 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.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.2 In affirming the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the August 21, 1978, letters sent by Respondent to the employees were not valid offers of reinstatement and violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act because of the condition imposed, namely, for the employees to forego their Sec 7 rights when reinstated, we have considered Respondent's contention that the Administrative Law Judge's interpretation of the phrase 'consistent with our discussions of August 17' is unfounded. We disagree. While other interpretations of the phrase may be possible, we find that the Administrative Law Judge's interpretation is a reasonable one under the circumstances In any event, even assuming that this interpretation is qu...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
