Extract
Pine Valley Meats, Inc., 402 (1981)
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, affiliated with AFL-CIO-CLC and Dale W. Wolfe.
Cases 30-CA-5490, 30-CA-5642, 30-RC3659, and 30-CA-5649March 31, 1981DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTIONOn November 12, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pine Valley Meats, Inc., Norwalk, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to rehire Dale Wolfe, we accept his credibility findings as to the conversation between Wolfe and President Ramis on January 10. 1980. Further, we think the testimony of Ramis concerning a policy against rehiring former employees is unclear and fails to show that a policy existed before the refusal to rehire Wolfe. We conclude that the Respondent has not established a defense based upon such a policy.2 In finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by various statements of President Ramis on December 18, 1979., the Administrative Law Judge included a statement by Ramis that money which the Respondent would have to spend for attorneys' fees for contract negotiations if the Union were successful could otherwise be spent for employee benefits. The Respondent contends that the statement was improperly relied upon because it was not alleged as an unfair labor practice and was not fully litigated. We reject the contention, and see no prejudice to the Respondent in relying upon the statement. The complaint alleges that on or about December 18, 1979, Ramis promised employees additional benefits and threatened withholding the same benefits if the employees supported the Union. Ramis' speech of December 18 was clearly in issue, and he testified concerning it. Two employee witnesses who testified about the speech and attributed the statement in dispute to Ramis were cross-examined by the Respondent's attorney, and one of them was specifically que...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
