Extract
Marquis Elevator Co., Inc., 461 (1975)
MARQUIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC. 461
Marquis Elevator Company, Inc. and International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union 31.Case 23-CA-5078April 21, 1975 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On September 26, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing on April 20, 1974, its recognition of Local Union 31 of the International Union of Elevator Constructors as the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's elevator constructor mechanics and helpers, all of whom were members of the Union.We further find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain thereafter, and by unilaterally changing the existing terms and conditions of employment by instituting its own wage guidelines and discontinuing payments to the various employee trust funds. We also adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by constructively discharging employees Foster and Sobolik by unlawfully and knowingly creating conditions that made it impossible for them to maintain their union membership and continue to work for the Respondent. We further agree that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employees Loving and Derr. However, while the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent constructively discharged these two employees, we find that by not recalling them after March 25, 1974, their discharges were actual discharges and not constructive discharges.The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.We disagree with and therefore do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that employee Kilsby was the subject of a constructive discharge when he quit the Respondent's employ in February 1974.Employee Kilsby's tenure with the Respondent commenced in November 1973 and continued through February 20, 1974, the date of ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
