Extract
Leas & McVitty, Inc., 389 (1965)
, pursuant to due notice. Consolidated therewith by order of the Regional Director was a hearing on an objection to the election in Case No. 5-RC-4873.
The complaint, which issued on January 26, 1965, on charges and amended charges dated November 21 and December 7, 1964, and January 6 and 19, 1965 , alleged in substance that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), (4), and (5) of the Act by discriminating against Luther Harrison on 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' October 15, 27, and 28 and by discharging him on November 13, because of his, union membership and activities and because he gave testimony at a Board hearing and by refusing to bargain on and after September 28 with the Union as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. The objection to the election in Case No. 5-RC-4873, on which the Regional Director ordered a hearing, related only to Harrison's discharge. Respondent answered, denying the unfair labor practices.Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, 1 make the following:FINDINGS OF FACT1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Respondent, a Delaware corporation, operates a leather tanning plant at Pearisburg„ Virginia, from whence it ships annually to extrastate points goods valued in excess of $50,000. It is therefore engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVEDThe Charging Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5), of the Act.III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the representation proceeding ; the issues Respondent operates plants at Pearisburg and Salem, Virginia , some 60 miles apart„ both of which have been the object of various unsuccessful organizational drives in the past. The present proceedings arose from a campaign ( also unsuccessful ) involving the Pearisburg plant which began around September 13, 1964, and which was.followed by a request to bargain dated September 23 and the filing of a representation petition on September 25. On September 28 Respondent refused recognition, asserting doubt of majority.Hearings were held in the representation case on October 15, 27, and 28 and November 16, with Respondent contending in part that the unit should include both, the Salem and the Pearisburg plants. There was also dispute as to the supervisory status of some nine individuals including Luther Harrison , who testified first as the Union's witness and was later recalled by Respondent . It was agreed that seven of the nine might vote cha...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
