Extract
Orthodontist's Service, 338 (1965)
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 1, 1965, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, 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 Trial Examiner's 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 three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of t:he Trial Examiner.155 NLRB No. 37.ORTHODONTIST'S SERVICE, ETC. 339 ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondents, James Rubin d/b,/a Orthodontist's Service, Hawley's, Inc., and Prior Plastics, Inc., New York,New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified :1. Add the following as paragraphs 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e) to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, the present paragraphs 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively redesignated :(c) If there is not sufficient work available for the remaining employees and those to be offered reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed among them without discrimination against any employee because of concerted activities, in accordance with such system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice heretofore applied by the Respondent in the conduct of his business. If, after such distribution, any employees remain for whom no positions are available, the Respondent shall place such employees on a preferential list with priority in accordance with such system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice heretofore applied by the Respondent in the conduct of his business, and thereafter offer them reinstatement as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work.' (d) Make whole for loss of earnings each unfair labor practice striker may suffer by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, in the manner herein prescribed, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period beginning 5 days after the date on which he applies for reemployment or reinstatement, and terminating on the date of Respondent's offer of employment or placement as the preferential list herein prescribed, whichever is applicable.' (e) Notify the above-mentioned employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.'The notice to all employees attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision is corrected accordingly.TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEThis proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner in New York,New York, on March 8, 9, and 10, 1965, on the complaint of the General Counsel, 212-809-66-vol. 155-23 as amended, and the answers of James Rubin d/b/a Orthodontist's Service, Hawley's, Inc., and Prior Plastics, Inc., herein referred to as Rubin, Orthodontist's, Hawley's, and Plastics, respectively, and Respondent collectively.' The issues litigated were whether the Respondents, collectively, and Rubin, particularly, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. At the close of the hearing the parties presented oral argument, and a brief was filed, thereafter, by General Counsel. Said arguments and brief have been carefully considered Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS1. THE ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
