Kingston Cake Company, Inc. And Franklin Williams, 447 (1950)

Summary

---

Kingston Mutual Association And Franklin Williams

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Kingston Cake Company, Inc. And Franklin Williams, 447 (1950)

In the Matter of KINGSTON CAKE COMPANY, INC. and FRANKLIN WILLIAMS In the Matter of KINGSTON MUTUAL ASSOCIATION and FRANKLIN WILLIAMS Cases Nos. 4-CA-267 and 4-CB-46.-Decided September 25, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On April 27, 1950, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, Kingston Cake Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent Company, and Kingston Mutual Association, herein called the Respondent Union, had engaged in 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief. In addition, the Respondent Company requested oral argument. However, because the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is hereby denied.

The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affrmed.2 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the cases and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and additions noted below.

We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by discharging Franklin Williams on May 9, 1949, the Respondent Company violated Section 1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].

2 For the reasons appearing in the Intermediate Report, we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that there is no merit to the Respondent Company's claim that Section 10 (b) of the Act requires a dismissal of the complaint in Case No. 4-CA-267 on the ground that there is a fatal variance between the compla'nt and the charge in that case.

91 NLRB No. 69.

8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act; and that by causing the Respondent Company to do so the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.

The following critical facts, upon which we rely in reaching our ultimate conclusions herein, are undisputed: On February 11, 1949, as a result of an election conducted by the Board on February 3, 1949, the Respondent Union was certified as the bargaining representative of the Respondent Company's production and maintenance employees. On February 23, the Respondents executed a collective bargaining agreement which provided in relevant part:

3. Within the limits of authority permitted by Federal and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania laws, the employer shall require as a condition of employment for employees, membership in the association [Kingston Mutual Association]...and will deduct, collect, or assist in collecting from the wages of employees when authorized... any dues, fees or assessments payable to the Association within the authority and procedure set forth in Federal or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania statutes...

4.... The employer shall discharge an employee when expelled from the association within the limits permitted by law.

Subsequently, the Respondent Union petitioned for a union-security election among the covered employees. On March 24, the Board conducted such an election, pursuant to the provision...

See the full content of this document

---