Extract
Mary Anne Bakeries, 207 (1967)
MARY ANNE BAKERIES
Wilber J. Allingham , d/b/a Mary Anne Bakeries and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America,Ind., Local No. 26 . Case 27-CA-1874April 28, 1967 DECISION AND ORDEROn May 26, 1966, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the conduct of the hearing and to the Decision together with a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error, which would warrant a remand of the case,' was committed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.1. The Trial Examiner dismissed the complaint in its entirety. His findings rest in large part upon his credibility resolutions, to which the General Counsel has excepted. It is the Board's well- establi shed policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility determinations unless the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that his resolutions were incorrect.2 While the evidence adduced by the General Counsel strongly suggests merit in the allegations of unlawful interrogation, threats, and the granting of wage increases to influence votes in the representation election, we nonetheless find such evidence insufficient to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in view of the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions. However, in adopting the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the complaint herein, we do not adopt any part of his Decision dealing with matters relating to the Union's majority status.' The General Counsel asserts that the Trial Examiner improperly interfered with the presentation of the General Counsel's case, and requests a trial de novo before a different Trial Examiner should the Board find that the present record does not support the violations alleged in the complaint. While the Trial Examiner's questions and comments prematurely and excessively interrupted the General Counsel 's presentation, and the Trial Examiner' s conduct of the hearing is fairly subject to criticism, we find, nevertheless , that the General Counsel was not precluded from presenting evidence and conclude that a new trial is not warranted.2 Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, 545, enfd.188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).2072. The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel denied Respondent Allingham a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel by directly obtaining Allingham's affidavit during the investigation of the charges herein. Citing the Supreme Court's...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
