N. L. Koin And D. M. Koin, a Partnership D/b/a The Ellis Canning Company And The Ellis Canning Company, a Corporation And Warehousing, Processing & Distributing Union No. 217, Affiliated With International- Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, C. I. 0:.:,.; ' ', 99 (1948)

Extract

---

N. L. Koin And D. M. Koin, a Partnership D/b/a The Ellis Canning Company And The Ellis Canning Company, a Corporation And Warehousing, Processing & Distributing Union No. 217, Affiliated With International- Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, C. I. 0:.:,.; ' ', 99 (1948)

In the Matter of N. L. KOIN AND D. M. KoIN, A PARTNERSHIP D/B/A THE ELLIS CANNING COMPANY AND THE ELLIS CANNING COMPANY, A CORPORATION and WAREHOUSING, PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTING UNION No.

217, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL- LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, C. I. 0:.:,.; ' ' Case Nos. 17-R-1339 'd 17-C-1383-Decided febi l 11, 1948 Mr. Robert Fouseic arld Mis.EiarYotffC c',e/.u~ 'or tfhe Board.

Rothgerber and Apped.by M'e srs. Ira rVothge ber and Willian S.

Powers, of Denver, Colo., for the respondents.

Messrs. William K. Ris and Louis Levin, of Denver, Colo., for the CIO.

Joseph A. Padway, by Messrs. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,

D. C., and Philip Hornbein, Jr., of Denver, Colo., for the AFL.

DECISION AND ORDER On December 6, 1946, Trial Examiner T. B. Smoot issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents had not engaged in unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that a number of the challenged ballots cast in the representation election should be opened and counted and that the challenges to other ballots should be sustained. Thereafter, the CIO and the AFL filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and all parties filed briefs.

On October 28, 1947, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,

D. C. The AFL and the respondents, but not the CIO, appeared and participated in the oral argument.

Subsequent to the oral argument, the Board requested all parties to submit supplemental briefs discussing the meaning of the closed-shop provision of the bargaining contract between the respondent and the AFL. Only the AFL and the respondents complied with the request and submitted such briefs.

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 affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions of the AFL and the CIO, the briefs of all parties, the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and modifications discussed herein.'. ' 1. The present se i.'a cln'o'Iid'atfioan f'two separate proceedingsa representatibo.p4roceeding and an unfair a1o.r practice proceeding. The 'ep.iesentation proceeding was initiated by Warehousing,

Processing ' Dist.fiuting. tJa ion No- 217,affiliated -with International Longshoremen's &.Warlel4 ue~hei's 1ioi; '11O, which has not complied with Section 9 (f) and (h) of the amended Act.

In view of the CIO's failure to comply, we shall sever the cases ...

See the full content of this document

---