Extract
Noland Co., 1082 (1984)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Noland CompanyI and Sharon S. Wilkins. Case 11CA-1019419 April 1984 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERSZIMMERMAN AND HUNTEROn 16 November 1982 Administrative Law Judge Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support of its cross-exceptions and in opposition to the exceptions of the General Counsel.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a threemember panel.The Board has considered the 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 recommended Order.ORDERThe National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Noland Company, Spartanburg, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.I The record indicates that Noland Company is the correct spelling of the Respondent, not Nolan Company as set forth in the judge's decision.we therefore correct this inadvertent error.s The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.s Although Chairman Dotson adopts the conclusions of the judge, he does not necessarily agree with the rationale of the decision nor the judge's discussion of concerted activity.Member Hunter considers it unnecessary to determine whether the Charging Party engaged in protected concerted activity. Even assuming she did, he would not find her discharge unlawful because, in his view, the evidence shows she was discharged for deficiencies in her work performance.DECISIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASELEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge. This matter was tried before me in Spartanburg, South Carolina, on July 6, 1982. On January 5, 1982, the Acting Regional Director for Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor practice charges filed on November 16, 1981.1 The complaint alleges that Nolan Company, herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it discharged its employee Sharon S. Wilkins on or about October 29. Respondent filed a timely answer in which it denies the commission of any unfair labor practice.All parti...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
