Extract
Manimark Corp., 599 (1991)
Manimark Corporation and Joseph Butner. Case 7-
CA-28430February 7, 1991DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERSCRACRAFT AND DEVANEYOn August 16, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief.On May 22, 1990, the National Labor Relations Board remanded the proceeding to the judge for certain further findings of fact, credibility resolutions, conclusions of law, and recommendations. Specifically, the complaint, as amended at the start of the hearing, alleged that a threat of plant closure by the Respondent was made within a week of the election.1 Because the judge believed that the General Counsel did not allege that this threat occurred during the 10(b) period, he failed to consider testimony relevant to this alleged unfair labor practice and to make credibility findings with respect to such testimony. In light of the fact that the complaint alleged, and the General Counsel asserted, that the conduct complained of did occur within the 10(b) period, we remanded the case to the judge for him to prepare a supplemental decision containing specific findings of fact, credibility resolutions, conclusions, and recommendations concerning the threat allegedly made by the Respondent's president.The judge issued the attached supplemental decision on June 27, 1990. Subsequently, the Respondent filed exceptions to the judge's supplemental decision.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the judge's decision and supplemental decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions3 and to adopt the supplemental recommended Order as modified.The judge failed to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when it interrogated employees because he noted the ''absence of any showing of coercion.'' We disagree and conclude that the interrogation of employee Day by Supervisor Smith on the day of the election was unlawful. Day testified without controversion that she had asked Smith on several occasions whether she could vote in the election.4 On the day of the election, she again asked Smith if she could vote. Smith asked which way she was voting. After Day said she would not answer, Smith said she could not vote. Smith's questioning of Day was thus expressly designed to elicit Day's union sentiments and, further, Smith's response left the clear impression that Day could not vote, even under challenge, because she would not provide an answer. Contrary to the judge, we find that such questioning has a chilling effect on the union activities of employees and interferes with employee exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. See Kellwood Co., 299 NLRB 1026 (1990), and Nemacolin Country Club, 291 NLRB 456 (1988).5ORDERTh...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
