Extract
M & W Marine Ways, Inc., 191 (1967)
M & W MARINE WAYS, INC.
M & W Marine Ways, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-2698 and 15-RC-3203June 8,1967DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTIONMEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On September 28, 1966, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer issued his Decision in the aboveentitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. In addition, the Trial Examiner found that Respondent did not engage in such conduct as would warrant setting aside the election in Case 15-RC-3203.Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions with a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a cross-exception to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in opposition to General Counsel's exceptions and 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 threemember 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Foreman Frey's questioning of employee Bourgeios was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.The allegation concerning the interrogation of Bourgeois was based upon Frey's questioning Bourgeois, shortly before the election, as to how he felt about the Union. The Trial Examiner, pointing to the fact that Bourgeois had previously worn a union badge, found this to be noncoercive. However, considered in the context of Respondent's other While we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when it discharged Ernest Jones, we do not adopt his finding and conclusion that Respondent had no notice that employees were engaging in union activity at the time From the record, it is clear, and the Trial 191 unfair labor practices, and its avowed opposition to organization of its employees, we find this incident to be violative of Section 8(a)(1). In doing so, we specifically note our disagreement with the Trial Examiner's assumption, as indicated by his reliance on Bourgeois' having worn a union badge, that interrogation of employees concerning union attitudes and beliefs can have no restraining effect where the employee questioned has at some time manifested prounion sympathies.Nor do we agree with the Trial Examiner's failure to recommend that the election be set aside on the basis of Frey's statement to Jacobi that a lot of things could happen to change the prospective union victory and that employees who supported the Union would be discharged if the Union won. The Trial Examiner f...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
