Extract
Post Tension of Nevada, Inc., 826 (2008)
Post Tension of Nevada, Inc. and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity. Case 28CA21886
January 30, 2009DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Liebman and Member SchaumberOn October 28, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Gregory Z. Meyerson issued the attached decision. The Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The Respondent also filed limited cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board[1] has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judges rulings, findings,[2] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.[3]ORDERThe National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Post Tension of Nevada, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except the attached notice is substituted for that of the administrative law judge.APPENDIXNotice To EmployeesPosted by Order of theNational Labor Relations BoardAn Agency of the United States GovernmentThe National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TOForm, join, or assist a unionChoose representatives to bargain with us on your behalfAct together with other employees for your benefit and protectionChoose not to engage in any of these protected activities.We will not orally promulgate and maintain an overly-broad and discriminatory rule that prohibits employees who are working from telling striking employees where crews of our employees are working.We will not orally promulgate and maintain an overly-broad and discriminatory rule that prohibits employees from speaking to agents of the Union.We will not create an impression among our employees that their union activities or other protected concerted activities are under surveillance.We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.Post Tension of Nevada, Inc.Chris J. Doyle, Esq., for the General Counsel.James T. Winkler, Esq., of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Respondent.David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., of Alameda, California and Brady Bratcher, Campaign Coordinator, of Pinole, California, for the Charging Party.DECISIONStatement of the CaseGregory Z. Meyerson, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to notice, I heard this case in Phoenix, Arizona, on August 6 and 7, 2008. District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity (the Union or the Charging Party) filed an unfair labor practice charge in this case on April 22, 2008. Based on that charge, the Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint and notice of hearing (the complaint) on June 27, 2008. The complaint alleges that Post Tension of Nevada, Inc. (the Respondent or the Employer) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices and raising a number of affirmative defenses.1All parties appeared at the hearing, and I provided them with the full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Based on the record, my consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel2 and counsel for the Respondent, and my observations of the demeanor to the witnesses, I now mak...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
