Extract
Pneumo Dynamics Corp., 926 (1969)
National Water Lift Company, a Division of Pneumo Dynamics Corporation and District 117 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-7141
December 8, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On August 22, 1969, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged 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 and recommended that said allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision.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 of the Trial Examiner made 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, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.Labor Relations Board and an amended answor filed thereto by National Water Lift Company, a Division of Pneumo Dynamics Corporation, herein called the Respondent.' The issues posed by the pleadings are whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument. A brief has been received from Respondent, which has been duly considered.Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my observation of the witnesses who testified on the stand, I hereby make the following:FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONSI. THE RESPONDENT' S BUSINESS Respondent , a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, maintains an office, manufacturing plant, and place of business in Kalamazoo , Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of hydraulic components and related products for aircraft, space, missile, and ordnance equipment.During the annual period material to this proceeding, and in the course and conduct of its business, Respondent purchased and caused to be delivered to its Kalamazoo plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were delivered thereto directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. In the same period,Respondent sold and distributed at its Kalamazoo plant products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from said plant directly to points located outside the State of Michigan . The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
