Extract
Jean Pier, 774 (1979)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victor Patino and Nydia Patino; Victor Patino and Nydia Patino d/b/a Jean Pier; Richard Erquiaga d/b/a California Sewing' and Los Angeles Joint Board of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 31-CA-6615, 31CA-5612, 31-CA-5771, and 31-CA-5849April 6, 1979 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On September 20, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Irving Rogosin issued the attached Decision in consolidated Cases 31 CA-5612, 31 CA-5771, and 31CA-5849, herein referred to as Case 31 CA-5612, et al. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed exceptions.2 Subsequently, while the Board was considering the Administrative Law Judge's original Decision, the General Counsel, on March 15, 1977, filed a motion with the Board requesting that the Board reopen the record in Case 31-CA-5612, et al., and consolidate that proceeding with Case 31-CA-6615, upon which the Regional Director had issued a complaint but which had not yet been heard by an Administrative Law Judge, and remand the entire proceeding for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Rogosin.On May 25, 1977, the Board issued an Order granting the motion and reopening the record in Case 31-CA5612, et al., for the purpose of either consolidating these cases with Case 31-CA-6615, or amending the complaint in Case 31-CA-5612, et al., to include the related allegations of Case 31-CA-6615. The Board also remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 31 for further hearing.Thereafter, the record was reopened, the cases were consolidated, the complaint in 31-CA-6615 was amended, and a further hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Rogosin. On February 22, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Rogosin issued the attached Supplemental Decision in this proceeding, and on February 27, 1978, he issued an errata thereto. Subsequently, Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental Decision and the General Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the NaI Hereinafter collectively called Respondent.2 As discussed by the Administrative Law Judge in fn. 4 ofhis Supplemental Decision. the General Counsel has moved to strike Respondent's exceptions to the original Decision. In light of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rule upon the motion to strike.3The motion was titled 'Motion to Amend Consolidated Complaint, Reopen Record and Remand for Further Hearing or, Alternatively, Motion to Reopen Record, Consolidate Cases and Remand for Further Heanng.' tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decisions in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,4 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.The Administrative Law Judge found, and for the reasons set forth by him we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act in various respects during and after the Charging Party's successful organizing campaign among Respondent's employees. We do not agree, however, with his finding that Respondent Victor and Nydia Patino d/b/a Jean Pier violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on September 12, 1975, by unilaterally offering the employees an insurance plan. The offer occurred approximately 6 weeks before the Board-conducted election which the Union won and therefore before Respondent was required to bargain with the Union. However, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion, for the reasons fully stated by him, that the offer constituted an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1).As discussed by the Administrative Law Judge, Respondent Victor Patino and Nydia Patino d/b/a Jean Pier shut down the Jean Pier operation in December 1975. In January 1976 the Patinos began operations again in a new location with new employees. Several months later the operation was continued under the name of Richard Erquiaga d/b/a California Sewing.As disclosed at the hearing and found by the Administrative Law Judge, California Sewing was actually owned by the Patinos.The Administrative Law Judge found, among other violations, that the original closure by the Patinos d/ b/a Jean Pier was for the purpose of avoiding its bargaining obligation with the recently certified Union, and, therefore, was in violation of Section 8(a)(5). He also found that the employees who were terminated in December 1975 as a result of the plant closure, as well as four who were discharged in November 1975, were discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3). We agree with these findings. The Administrative Law Judge neglected to find, however, that the failure to reinstate the employees when operations were thereafter resumed in January 1976 ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
