Extract
Marlin Rockwell Corp., 553 (1962)
5. By causing the Company to discriminate against E. J. Harrison, S. W. Carlisle,
Thomas A. Gray, Dallas Roy, H. A. Doucet, R. D. Lisenby, D. ' B. Lisenby, and Rubin Thomas in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.6. The Respondents, by the aforementioned acts, have restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and did thereby engage in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.8. The Union has not violated the Act by maintaining its bylaws in effect, and imposing an assessment on all working members. Nor have the Respondents coerced S. W. Carlisle to furnish them with an affidavit, in violation of the Act.[Recommendations omitted from publication. ] Marlin Rockwell Corporation and Adam T. Raczkowski Marlin Rockwell Corporation and Arthur R. Wolfe Marlin Rockwell Corporation and John H. Turner International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO and Its Local 197 and Adam T. Raczkowski International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and AgriculI'ttiral Implement Workers of America, CIO and Its Local 197 and Arthur R. Wolfe International Union, United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO and Its Local 197 and John H. Turner. Cases Nos. 1-CA1596, 1-CA-1607, 1-CA1689, 1-CB-249, 1-CB-956, and 1-CB-272. October 20, 1955 DECISION AND ORDEROn July 30,1954, Trial Examiner Loren Laughlin issued his Interm'ediate Report in this proceeding, a copy of which is attached hereto, finding that the Respondent Unions had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. The -Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Company had not engaged in unfair labor practices and recommended therefore that the complaint against the Company be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent. Unions filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and requested oral argument. The request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.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 Interme114 NLRB No. 94.554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and with certain exceptions noted below hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent that they are consistent with this Decision and Order.As appears more fully from the Intermediate Report this case arose as a result of differences between the Union and the Company, on the one hand, and the employees who filed the charges herein, on the other,' over the Union's legal right to invoke against these employees the discharge powers afforded it by its current membership-maintenance contract. The Union allegedly invoked those powers as a means of compelling the employees to make financial dues contributions to the Union, although the employees had tendered resignations from union membership and although.the membership-maintenance contract in effect when they resigned had expired. The Trial Examiner found (and for the reasons set forth hereafter we agree) that the Union's interpretation and application of its current membershipmaintenance contract to the charging employees in these circumstances was erroneous as a matter of law. He found further, that as the Union's invocation of its discharge powers thus represented an intrusion upon statutory rights of employees which the current contract did not specifically justify, the Union violated 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.In its exceptions, the Union claims initially that there is no 'proper' record basis for a fact finding that it actually invoked, or threatened to invoke, the discharge powers of its union-security agreement against the charging employees for the latter's nonpayment of dues.The facts critical to a disposition of these factual exceptions are as follows.The Union's official position with respect to the charging employees' resignations from union membership was that the resignations were null and void. It so advised both the Company and the employees on -a number of occasions, and so maintained throughout this proceeding.The Union's aim, so far as the charging employees' were concerned, was to obtain from such employees their continuing contributions of periodic membership dues for the duration ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
