Extract
Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co., 1507 (1951)
2. The Respondent make whole the Charging Party for any losses of pay and other incidents of the employment relationship which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to 5 days after the date on which the Union serves upon the Respondent the above-described written request. The losses of pay, if any , shall be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner recently established by the Board.' Upon the basis of the above findings of facts and upon the entire record in the ease, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.2. By causing, and attempting to cause, the Employer to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the-meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 2 F. TV. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.JEFFERSON STANDARD BROADCASTING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, LOCAL 1229. Case No.34-CA-170. June 26, 1951Decision and Order On August 21, 1950, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had' engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent requested oral argument and filed its 'Statement of Objections and Exceptions to the Intermediate Report.' .On January 31, 1951, the Board granted the Respondent's request for oral argument, which was heard by the Board on April 3, 1951, and in which the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Union participated.94 NLRB No. 227.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the brief of the General Counsel'to the Trial Examiner, the oral argument before it, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings of fact with the additions and corrections noted below.For the reasons set forth herein, however, the Board does not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions and recommendations set forth in Section III of the Intermediate Report except as specifically indicated herein.The Respondent asserts in its statement of objections and exceptions that the Trial Examiner disclosed partisanship in favor of the Union and against the Respondent 'both in the record and in the Intermediate Report.' We find these assertions unjustified.' 1. On August 20, 1949, the Respondent's chief engineer, Minor,2 rated transmitter technician Hicks' service 'unsatisfactory.' This endorsement was placed upon Hicks' Federal Communications Commission license as a 'radio telephone operator first class,' and the license was mailed to the Commission with a letter setting out instances of alleged neglect by Hicks. The license was then due for renewal and was requisite to Hicks' employment as a transmitter technician..Before rating Hicks the Respondent had been advised by the Commission that, under the Commission's regulations, the rating was to be confined to the quality of performance of technical duties without reference to 'other aspects of an operator's relationship with his employer.' Despite the unsatisfactory rating, the Commission renewed Hicks' license.The Trial Examiner found that Hicks was not rated by the Respondent 'for his performance of duties,' with which we agree.3 We do not, however, agree with his conclusion that 'the giving of the `unsatisfactory' endorsement to Hicks was clearly calculated to discourage any further concerted activity of the employees toward obtain1 As to the hearing we note specifically that the Respondent, on the record , commended the Trial Examiner for his cooperation and patience.2Inadvertently the Trial Examiner referred to Minor as the chief 'electrician' at WBT for 'at least 10 years. ' Minor had been the chief engineer at the station for approximately 6 years.3 The Respondent excepted to the General Counsel' s pleading, in general terms, a violation of Section 8 (a)...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
