Extract
Peter Satori Co., Ltd., 36 (1969)
Peter Satori Co., Ltd. and International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94. Cases 3l-CA-812, and 31-CA-812-2
March 25, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On April 23, 1968, Trial Examiner Martin S.Bennett 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 He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to them Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.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.The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.We agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons set forth in his Decision, that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the Act by (1) refusing to furnish the Union with information concerning the details of a profit-sharing and retirement plan previously established, and (2) negotiating directly with employees in the body shop department concerning wages at a time when wage negotiations with the Union were pending. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, however, we do not agree that the Respondent's course of conduct in its negotiation sessions with the Union can be characterized as merely 'hard bargaining by a manifestly skilled negotiator.' Viewed in its totality, we are persuaded, for the reasons discussed below, that the Respondent was determined to frustrate the collective-bargai...See the full content of this document
