Extract
Jan Power Inc. Maintenance Service, 798 (1968)
Jan Power Inc. Maintenance Service and Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399
M & M Enterprises Co. d/b/a Columbia Building Maintenance Co. Inc.; and System Building Service Inc. and Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399Service Employees Council and Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 986 (Service Employers Council; Jan Power Inc. Maintenance Service; and M & M Enterprises Co. d/b/a Columbia Building Maintenance Co. Inc., and System Building Service Inc.and Service and Maintenance Employees Union,Local 399 and City Building Maintenance Co.;Crystal Building Maintenance Co.; and Western Pacific Management Co., Parties to the Contract.Cases 31-CA-631, 31-CA-632, 31-CA-705, and 31-CB-234November 13, 1968 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNINGAND ZAGORIAOn May 23, 1968, Trial Examiner Maurice Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that certain Respondents had engaged and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs, and the Respondent Employers filed an answering brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a threemember panel.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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of he Trial Examiner except as modified below.1. The Trial Examiner found, and particularly in the absence of exceptions we agree, that Respondents Jan Power Inc. Maintenance Service and M & M Enterprises Co., hereinafter referred to as Jan Power and M & M, committed independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the acts and conduct of their supervisors and officials, including, inter alia, unlawfully interrogating and threatening employees, creating an impression of surveillance, improperly promising wage increases, and unlawfully discouraging protected activity on behalf of Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399, hereinafter referred to as Local 399.The Trial Examiner also found, and particularly in the absence of exceptions we agree, that Respondents Jan Power and M & M unlawfully solicited membership applications and checkoff authorizations and unlawfully deducted dues from employees' wages on behalf of Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 986, hereinafter referred to as Local 986, in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and that Respondent Jan Power discriminatorily reduced employees' work hours in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.2. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Service Employers Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council, its employer-members and Local 986 did not violate the Act by executing, maintaining, and enforcing the collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-security provision.' The General Counsel and the Charging Party have excepted to these findings. For the reasons set forth below, we find merit in their exceptions.The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, that the collective-bargaining agreement should be set aside if the evidence established 'sufficient precontract misconduct to taint the majority.' We do not agree, however, with the Trial Examiner's findings that. (1) although Jan Power and M & M engaged in substantial postcontract misconduct, the number of employees coerced and the coercion practiced by these employers before the contract was 'minimal,' and therefore was insufficient to establish that Local 986's majority was tainted; and (2) the coercion practiced by Jan Power, M & M, and Western should not be viewed in the aggregate to determine whether the misconduct was 'sufficiently pervasive to taint the entire majority within the multi-employer unit.' In Clement Brothers Company, Inc., 165 NLRB 1 The Council is composed of Respondent Jan Power, Respondent Council to bargain collectively on its behalf and became a party to the M & M, City Building Maintenance Co., hereinafter referred to as City , collective-bargaining agreement. The Trial Examiner found, and we and Crystal Building Maintenance Co., hereinafter referred to as Crystal. agree, that the employees of all five employers , includ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
