Extract
Paramount Trends, Inc., 141 (1976)
PARAMOUNT TRENDS, INC. 141
Paramount Trends, Inc. and International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Case 31-CA-5152January 12, 1976 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On October 6, 1975, Administrative Law Judge E.Don Wilson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent consistent herewith.1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employees Arredondo and Ramirez. We further agree with his findings that Respondent, through its assistant manager,Kratzer, violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening Ramirez with discharge because she had signed an authorization card on behalf of the Union, by threatening plant closure should the Union prove successful ' In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently referred to Respondent's Assistant Manager Kratzer as 'Kratzner.' Additionally, the Administrative Law Judge found that both Peterson, Respondent's 'leadwoman,' and Kratzer, respectively, terminated employee Arredondo, whereas the record clearly reveals that it was Kratzer who informed Arredondo of his discharge This apparently inadvertent error, however, does not affect the results of our Decision herein Respondent has filed a motion in which it requests an independent review of the record and issuance of a decision by another Administrative Law Judge, contending, inter aba, that the Administrative Law Judge's resolutions of credibility, findings of fact, and conclusions of law are the result of bias and that his Decision is 'irregular.' After a careful review of the entire record in this case, we are satisfied that Respondent's motion is lacking in merit. There is no basis for finding that bias and partiality exist merely because the Administrative Law Judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel's witness...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
