Extract
Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co., Inc., 740 (1951)
'740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
MACKAY RADIO AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INC., and JOSEPH T. MAZZOLO AND FREDERICK W. ROBITZER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERSMACKAY RADIO AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INC., anti FREDERICK W.ROBITZER AND LADISLAV C. BREUER ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERSCOMMERCIAL CABLE COMPANY and HARRIET BERGER , ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS. Cases Nos. 2-CA-285, P2-CA-411, and 2-CA-'61. October 11, 1951Decision and Order On February 5, 1951, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the charging parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs, and the Respondents filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. The Respondent and the charging parties have also requested oral argument. The requests for oral argument are hereby denied as the record and the exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties with respect to the matters herein decided.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, 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 additions and modifications set forth below.1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the strikers forfeited the protection of the Act by engaging in an unlawful strike,In view of our decision herein, we deem it unnecessary to, and do not, decide whether the Trial Examiner properly (a) denied the motion of the charging parties to reopen the record herein, and (b) excluded from consideration evidence pertaining to negotiations between All America and the representative of its employees, and to communications from All America to its striking employees.96 NLRB No. 106.MACKAY RADIO AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INC. 741 and that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to order that they be reinstated. As found by the Trial Examiner, ACA, during the prestrike negotiations, demanded that the Respondents agree to certain unlawful union-security proposals.2 During the negotiations, and, in fact, until the very eve of the strike, ACA refused to modify its position that the Respondents accede to its unlawful demands.Thus, ACA refused to accept the Respondents' offer of a union-security contract which conformed to the requirements of the amended Act;failed to submit to the Respondents revisions of its and the Respondents' union-security proposals, although it had agreed to do so;and, at the last meeting before the strike, demanded to know whether the Respondents would reconsider its wage and union-security proposals.3 Moreover, there is no evidence that ACA, at any time during the strike, modified or abandoned its prestrike proposals; rather, the execution of a union-security contract remained *one of ACA's principal objectives throughout the strike.In addition, at no time relevant to this proceeding did ACA either comply with the filing requirements of the Act or indicate that it intended to comply therewith. Nor is there evidence that ACA would have been willing to postpone the effectiveness of any otherwise lawful union-security contract which it might negotiate until it had complied with such filing requirements and had been authorized, in an election conducted pursuant to Section 9 (e) of the Act, to execute such an agreement. Rather, ACA's rejection of the Respondents' offer of a union-security clause conforming to the requirements of the Act indicates that ACA had no intention of accepting a contract contingent upon its compliance with the requirements of the Act. Hence, no union-security contract which ACA would have been willing to execute would have been lawful under the amended Act .4Considering all the foregoing facts as a whole, the conclusion is inescapable, and we find, that ACA adamantly insisted that the' Respondents agree to an unlawful union-security contract, and that the strike was called and prosecuted, at least in substantial part, to compel the Respondents to accede to ACA's demands for such an unlawful contract. Such a strike, to compel the Re...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
