Johnson, Robert E., and Geneva H. Johnson, a partnership, d/b/a Jolie Belts Company, 1130 (1982)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Johnson, Robert E., and Geneva H. Johnson, a partnership, d/b/a Jolie Belts Company, 1130 (1982)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robert E. Johnson and Geneva H. Johnson, a partnership, d/b/a Jolie Belts Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,Southern California District Counsel, AFLCIO. Cases 21-CA-20101 and 21-CA-20215December 16, 1982 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER ANDMEMBERS FANNING AND ZIMMERMANOn August 30, 1982, Administrative Law Judge Gordon H. Myatt issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel filed limited exceptions' and a supporting 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent consistent herein, and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.The Administrative Law Judge found that on Friday, February 20, 1981, Respondent's co-owner,Geneva Johnson, threatened to reduce the hours that employee Amparo Rodriguez worked from 8 to 7 per day. Finding that Johnson made the threat due to Rodriguez' signing of a union authorization card and a dues-deduction card on February 20, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent's reduction-of-hours threat violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the 8(a)(3) allegation that Respondent subsequently acted on that threat by actually reducing Rodriguez' hours, finding that 'there is no conclusive evidence in the record to establish that this was in fact done.' Counsel for the General Counsel excepts to this finding, and to the dismissal of that portion of the complaint. We find merit in that exception.General Counsel's Exhibit 16 contains copies of 22 weekly payroll checkstubs that Amparo Rodriguez received for the period October 18, 1980, to November 13, 1981.2 These slips indicate the folThe only exceptions filed were by counsel for the General Counsel, and related solely to the issue of the alleged reduction in work hours of employee Amparo Rodriguez.' Paycheck stubs for all weeks in that period of time were not introduced into evidence. G.C. Exh. 22, consisting of a summary of the Union's mid-1981 audit of Respondent's records, indicated similar prethreat average hours worked by Rodriquez; there were no detailed postthreat figures in that exhibit.265 NLRB No. 141 lowing: Prior to Respondent's February 20, 1981, threat to reduce her hours, Rodriguez worked an average of 37.5 hours per week, with 3 weeks of 40 or more hours and only 1 week of less than 30 hours. After Respondent's February 20 threat to reduce her hours, Rodriguez worked an average of 32.0 hours per week, with 0 weeks of 40 or more hours, and 4 weeks of less than 30 hours. It thus is clear that Rodriguez, who normally worked 5 days per week, worked an average total of 5 hours per week less after the threat; that is, Rodriguez normal workday was reduced after t...See the full content of this document
