Extract
Laser Tool, 105 (1995)
Laser Tool, Incorporated and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO. Cases 34-CA-6748 and 34-RC-1272December 18, 1995DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS COHEN AND TRUESDALEOn July 10, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Richard H. Beddow Jr. issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2ORDERThe National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Laser Tool, Incorporated, Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 34-RC-1272 is severed from this proceeding and remanded to the Regional Director for Region 34 for further appropriate action.Darryl Hale, Esq., for the General Counsel.David A. Ryan, Esq., of Waterbury, Connecticut, for the Respondent.DECISIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASERICHARD H. BEDDOW JR., Administrative Law Judge. This matter was heard in Hartford, Connecticut, on April 19-21, 1995. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent. The proceeding is based upon a charge filed September 29, 1994,1 by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO. The Regional Director's complaint dated January 10, 1995, as subsequently amended, alleges that Respondent Laser Tool, Inc., of Thomaston, Connecticut, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by promising increased wages; engaging in surveillance; threatening with a loss of benefits; expressing the futility of union representation, threatening to close the plant; harassing union supporters by restricting their movement and their ability to talk in the plant; harassing John Desrochers by placing him under close observation and prohibiting him from jogging; failing to grant its employees the benefit of a half day off with pay; and by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of a unit of its employees.Related issues were raised when the Union filed objections to the election and the Regional Director issued a supplemental decision on January 27, 1995, referring those matters for hearing. Although no documentary order consolidating the cases was issued, the matter was discussed at the opening of the hearing and I orally ordered that the matters be consolidated for a decision.On a review of the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor, I make the followingFINDINGS OF FACTI. JURISDICTIONRespondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of form tools. It annually purchases and receives goods and ma-1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findin...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
