Extract
Litton Business Systems, Inc., 1006 (1974)
Royal Typewriter Company, a Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc., a Subsidiary of Litton Industries, Inc., and Litton Industries, Inc. and Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local 469, affiliated with International Union Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO Litton Business Systems, Inc., a Subsidiary of Litton Industries, Inc., and Litton Industries, Inc. and Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local 469, affiliated with International Union Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 17-CA-3788, 17-CA-3857, 17-CA-3932, and 17-CA-4023
April 2, 1974 DECISION AND ORDERBy MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLOOn August 19, 1971, Administrative Law Judge' John F. Funke issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Litton Business Systems, Inc., and Royal Typewriter Company, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs,2 the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondents and the Charging Party filed answering brief s.3On February 14, 1973, the Board issued an Order remanding the proceeding for a further hearing before the Administrative Law Judge for the purpose of receiving additional evidence relevant to the single-employer status of Litton Industries, Inc.,Litton Business Systems, Inc., and Royal Typewriter Company; the participation, if any, by officials of Litton Industries, Inc., in the alleged unfair labor practices; and any other factors relevant to the appropriateness of requiring Litton Industries, Inc., to remedy any unfair labor practices found. The Board's Order reversed the Administrative Law 1 The title of 'Trial Examiner' was changed to 'Administrative Law Judge' effective August 19, 1972.2 The Charging Party also requested oral argument This request is hereby denied, as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.3 Respondents' motion for leave to file a supplement to their brief is hereby denied, as the material therein, consisting of a stipulation entered Into by different parties in another proceeding, cannot affect the outcome herein. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Charging Party's motion for special leave to file a reply brief A The only evidence introduced at the reopened hearing was the testimony of three officers of Litton Industries, Inc, in a proceeding before the Federal Trade Commission. The Administrative Law Judge, while admitting the testimony into evidence, refused to consider it in deciding the issues of single-employer status and participation in unfair labor practices We find that the testimony was properly received in evidence as an admission against interest by Litton Industries, Inc We further find that the testimony was admissible as newly discovered evidence, since much of it Judge's ruling denying the General Counsel's motion, made during the hearing, to add Litton Industries, Inc., as a respondent and granted said motion.On April 6, 1973, the Board issued an Order further clarifying the Order of February 14 and denying the petition for reconsideration filed by Litton Industries, Inc.. the separate and concurrent motions of Litton Business Systems, Inc., and Royal Typewriter Company to reconsider; the Charging Party's motion to take affirmative action; and the separate and concurrent motions of Litton Business Systems, Inc., and Royal Typewriter Company to expunge the Charging Party's motion from the record.Pursuant to the Board's remand Order, a further hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Funke. No evidence was introduced by Litton Industries, Inc., Litton Business Systems, Inc., or Royal Typewriter Company, but additional evidence was introduced by the General Counsel and the Charging Party.'' On June 15, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge issued his Supplemental Decision,5 finding no single-employer relationship between Litton Industries, Inc., and the other Respondents, and no participation by Litton Industries, Inc., in any unfair labor practices, and recommending that Litton Industries, Inc., be stricken as a respondent.Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Litton Business Systems, Inc., and Royal Typewriter Company filed separate and concurrent briefs in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Supplemental Decision.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 Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Supplemental Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Administrative Law Judge's rulings,6 findings, and conclusions to the extent consistent herewith. However, the Board is not was given after the close of the original hearing herein and the remai...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
