Extract
McLane Co., Inc., 1036 (1967)
McLane Company, Inc. and United Packinghouse,
Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-2824August 7, 1967 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSFANNING AND ZAGORIAOn April 27, 1967, Trial Examiner Jerry B.Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a threemember panel.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. 1 he Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,' the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, McLane Company,Inc., Temple, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.166NLRBNo 1271 We hereby correct the following madvertences in the Trial Examiner's Decision Under section E , 1, the initial date in the first sentence of the text should read 'December 11, 1965,' rather than ' December 11, 1966', and under section E, 4, the date in the penultimate sentence should read 'October 5, 1966', rather than 'October 6, 1966 ' R The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as of April 17, 1966, and thereafter, because it refused to bargain in good faith concerning the checkoff of union dues The Union was anxious to obtain a checkoff provision The Respondent in negotiations refused to accede to one because , as it stated, it did not wish to assume the additional clerical work checkoff would entail , it was opposed to forcing employees to pay union dues, and it feared employees would be forced into signing checkoff cards Despite Respondent 's firm opposition, the Union nevertheless sought at several bargaining sessions to secure its agreement to a checkoff provision , but failed to do so In these circumstances we find that the Respondent did not fail to bargain in good faith about checkoff but only refused to agree to a contract provision on the matter Such a refusal to agree is clearly no violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act Accordingly, we find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) on and after April 17, 1966, by re...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
