Extract
PNEU Electric, 616 (2000)
PNEU Electric, Inc./Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 995, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-14050
September 29, 2000DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX AND LIEBMAN On February 9, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Robert C. Batson issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent PNEU Electric, Inc. filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Orders as modified. We adopt the judge's finding that the Respondents discharged, and caused the discharge, of employees Clifford Zylks and Andras Aycock because of their union organizational activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). The judge found in this regard that Respondent Nan Ya's safety manager and contract coordinator, Paul Bergeron, directed that Zylks and Aycock not organize "on the site" and found that this statement independently violated Section 8(a)(1). The judge found that PNEU employees customarily talked about nonwork matters while working on the Nan Ya jobsite. Further, Respon-dent Nan Ya's no-solicitation rule did not restrict employee conversations while working and, according to Bergeron, conversations among employees about a union would be permissible if work was not interrupted and the conversations were approved by management. Respon- dent PNEU had no specific rules regarding solicitation. While it did expect employees to be working when on worktime, the judge credited the testimony of Zylks and Aycock that they did not stop their own work while talking about the Union nor did they interfere with the work of other employees. 1 Respondent PNEU Electric, Inc. (PNEU) has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 363 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. The judge inadvertently stated that Respondent Nan Ya violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) by telling employees that they could not engage in union organizational activities at the Nan Ya site. As the judge found in his conclusions of law, this conduct violated Sec. 8(a)(1) and was so alleged in the complaint. For the reasons set forth by the judge, we find that Foremen Tim Benoit and Mark Miller were agents of Respondent PNEU, and we therefore find it unnecessary to pass on whether they were statutory supervisors. In these circumstances, and particularly in light of the credited testimony of Zylks and Aycock, it is evident that their discharges were not attributable to valid work-related restrictions pertaining to interference with work. Thus, there was no interference with work on their part, and the Respondents' rules or policies pertained only to such interference. Accordingly, it follows that the focus of their discharges was, as the judge found, the content of their conversations-the Union-and their union solicitation of other employees. We therefore adopt the judge's finding that Zylks and Aycock were unlawfully discharged because of their union activities. We also agree with the judge that Respondent PNEU violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing to consider for employment applicants Kendrick Russell, Donald Longupee, and Roland Goetzman when they sought to apply for work on June 25, 1996.2 On June 24, Respondent PNEU's field manager, Freddie Zeringue, informed applicant Russell Anderson that PNEU needed electricians at the Nan Ya jobsite. On June 25, Anderson, whose union affiliation was unknown, appeared at the jobsite and was given an application. Also on Ju...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
