Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc., 159 (1958)

Docket Number: 16-CA-01016

Linked as:

Extract

Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc., 159 (1958)

PAGE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, INC. 159

It has further been found that the Respondent discriminatorily failed and refused to recall Samuel Blair to work because he sought to enlist the Union's aid in processing grievances, an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from discriminating against or visiting reprisals upon any of its employees because they engage in protected concerted activities.

Because of the underlying purpose and tendency of this unlawful conduct, it is concluded that there exists danger that the Respondent will in the future commit other unfair labor practices. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices found, but also from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.

Affirmatively, it will be recommended that the Respondent withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until the Union demonstrates its majority status in a Board-conducted election. It will further be recommended that the Respondent offer to Samuel Blair immediate reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him, by paying to him a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during the said period. The back pay provided for herein shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board; earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect on the back-pay liability for any other period 38

It will be further recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, all records necessary to compute the amount of back pay due under the terms of this recommended order. Finally, it will be recommended that the Respondent post the usual notices at its main office and also at all its other establishments which service dredging work in the territory described in the contract of October 1, 1955, between it and the Union, namely, 'on the Atlantic Coast from the Canadian border to the southerly border of the State of Maryland and tributory waters in this zone emptying into the Atlantic Ocean.' [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 88 F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289.

Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. and Lodge 889, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. and Lodge 889, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 16-CA-1016 and 16-CA-1071. March 12, 1959 CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER

On April 30, 1958, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his Intermediate Report in Case No. 16-CA-1016, finding that the Respondent (herein called Page) had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that Page cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.

Thereafter, Page filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.

123 NLRB No. 23.

On September 4, 1958, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his Intermediate Report in Case No. 16-CA-1071, finding that Page had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charging Party (herein called the Union) and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel filed a supporting brief.

As the parties in both cases are identical, and as the determinative issues in both cases are identical, the Board, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, hereby consolidates these cases for decisional purposes and issues a consolidated Decision and Order.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners made at the hearings, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.

The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Reports, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in each case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiners, only insofar as they are consistent with the findings herein.

The complaint in Case No. 16-CA-1016 alleged, and the Trial Examiner found, that on and after July 15, 1957, Page violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by illegally refusing to bargain with the Union as representative of an appropriate unit of Page's employees at its Fort Sill, Oklahoma, operations, consisting of all service, repair, maintenance, and inspection emplo...

See the full content of this document