Extract
Jackson Manufacturing Co., 460 (1958)
, and an amended charge was filed December 23, 1958, against Respondents Kershaw and Jackson in Cases Nos. 15 -CA-1413 and 15-CA-1412, respectively, alleging further violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (5).
1. The settlement agreement and Respondent's compliance therewith It appears from uncontradicted statements in the pleadings that following his investigation of the charges and amended charges in Cases Nos. 15-CA-1097 and 1098 the Regional Director proposed a settlement of the issues by agreement between the parties which Respondent accepted and the Union rejected. Whereupon settlement agreements were executed on June 11, 1958, and the Union was notified by the Regional Director that he would refuse to issue a complaint. The Union failed to seek the General Counsel's review of the Regional Director's action as provided by Section 102.19 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 7.The agreements, in printed form, provided for posting of notices by the Respondent and compliance with other stated requirements. The Regional Director, for his part, refused to issue a complaint on the charges. Provision was also made in the agreements for withdrawal of the charges in the case. Thus, the Charging Party agreed to request the withdrawal of the charge, 'to become effective when the Regional Director is satisfied that the provisions of this agreement have been carried out.' As the Union refused to participate in these agreements such a clause requires further clarification. I would conclude, therefore, that the Regional Director had obligated himself to withdraw the charges or to consider them inoperative upon Respondent's compliance with the terms of the agreements.31 Attached to each agreement was the notice which Respondent was obligated to post for a period of 60 days32A reading of the notice indicates that a remedy was sought only for the instances o...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
