Sprint/United Management Co., 1012 (2003)

National Labor Relations Board

Linked as:

Extract


Sprint/United Management Co., 1012 (2003)

Sprint/United Management Company and Jeborah

Diebold. Case 17-CA-21603

August 15, 2003

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND ACOSTA

On September 30, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Mary Miller Cracraft issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2

1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.

2 The General Counsel relies on Tradewaste Incineration, 336 NLRB 902 (2001), as support for the proposition that Jeborah Diebold's e-mail message to her coworkers about the suspected presence of anthrax did not lose the protection of the Act. In Tradewaste, the Board found that an employee did not lose the protection of the Act despite posting notices containing incorrect perceptions regarding a new hire's pay rate. Tradewaste is distinguishable from this case because unlike here, the Board adopted the judge's finding that the evidence did not show that the information in the notice was deliberately or maliciously false. Id. at 907. "In a labor relations context, the phrase 'maliciously false' refers, inter alia, to a statement uttered 'with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.'" See Linn v. Plant Guards, 383 U.S. 53, 61 (1966).

In agreeing that Diebold's e-mail did not constitute protected concerted activity, Chairman Battista does not pass on Tradewaste Incineration. Chairman Battista agrees that the statements here were intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity. Further, even if they were simply false, Chairman ...

See the full content of this document

Sponsored links




ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company