Extract
Jack Smith Beverages, Inc., 1401 (1951)
Ceiilent, Lime, and Gypsum Workers, Local 291, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By assisting and lending support to United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers, Local 291, AFL, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.3. By entering into a contract containing an unlawful provision for preference of AFL employees, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.5. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.6. The Company did not engage in an unfair labor practice by denying promotion to Florencio Castillo in July 1949.7. The AFL did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) or Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] JACK SMITH BEVERAGES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, AND SOFT DRINK DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL No.164, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Case No. 7-CA-331. June 11, 1951Decision and Order On November 3, 1950, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; and Respondent and Teamsters Local 164 filed briefs.The request for oral argument is denied, because the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately set forth the positions of the parties.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 and br...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
