Extract
Local No. 1268, UAW, 898 (1971)
Local No. 1268, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implemental Workers of America (Chrysler Corporation) and Elbert Person. Case 38-CB-307
October 22, 1971 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDYOn June 4, 1971, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEEUGENE F. FREY, Trial Examiner: This case was tried before me in Belvidere, Illinois, on January 27 and 28, and February 18, 1971, following pretrial proceedings in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), and involves the issues whether Respondent, the abovenamed Union, I coerced employees of Chrysler Corporation i Herein Local 1268 is called the Union, while the parent organization is called the UAW 2 The issues arise on a complaint issued November 5, 1970, by the (herein called Chrysler or Employer) by refusing fairly and properly to represent the Charging Party, Elbert Person, in presentation of a grievance filed by him under a collectivebargaining contract executed by the Union and Chrysler, and caused Chrysler to deprive him of overtime work by having his name removed from an overtime work list, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.2General Counsel and Respondent participated in the trial by counsel and Person appeared personally. At the trial, I granted all parties an opportunity to file written beefs with me on or before March 22, 1971. Briefs were received by me on April 7 and 8, 1971, after an extension of time for filing was granted by the Chief Trial Examiner.Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the witnesses on the stand and consideration of arguments made during the trial and in written briefs, I make the following:FINDINGS OF FACT1. THE BUSINESS OF CHRYSLER AND STATUS OF RESPONDENTChrysler is a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business and plant located in Belvidere, Illinois, which is the only plant involved in this case. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobiles. In the 12 months prior to issuance of the complaint, Chrysler had direct outflow of finished products from its Belvidere plant valued in excess of $50,000, and in the same period had direct inflow to that plant of goods and materials valued over $50,000. I find that Chrysler is and has been at all material times herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Facts Since November 1967, and at all times mentioned in this Decision, Chrysler and the Union have ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
