Extract
Richdel, Inc., 467 (1982)
RICHDEL, INC.
Richdel, Inc. andJmunes A. Cota and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.350. Cases 32-CA-1637 and 32-CA-1825November 24, 1982 DECISION AND ORDEROn April 2, 1980, Administrative Law Judge James M. Kennedy issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief.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 complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS, dissenting in part:Contrary to our colleagues, we find that the record establishes that Respondent discharged employee Makert for her protected concerted activity of soliciting employees' statements or signatures on a petition in support of her claim that Supervisor Rivera had been removing name tags from boxes of parts she had produced.I We adopt pro formn the Administrative Law Judge's finding that a remedial order would not be necessary assuming that Supervisor Hunt's remark to employee Karr that employee Cot'· 'could get fired' for forming a union was an unlawful threat to discharge an employee for union activity. Hunt's remark was not alleged to be a violation nor was it the subject of an exception.'· We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent decided to discharge Cots for violating work rules before it became aware of Cots's intention to organize the employees and therefore did not violate Sec. 8(aX1) or (3). However, in view of Hunt's comment to Karr concerning Respondent's possible response to Cota's plans to form a union, we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that there was no evidence of union animus on Respondent's part.In dismissing the complaint allegations with respect to the discharge of employee Makert, we find that, even assuming that Plant Manager Rodgers relied on Makert's statements that she had sought statements from other employees in connection with her dispute with Supervisor Rivers, that does not establish that Respondent would not have discharged her absent that activity. More importantly, the mere enlisting of other employees' assistance in furtherance of a personal dispute between an employee and a supervisor does not draw activity undertaken in furtherance of that dispute into the protections of the Act. There is no evidence that other employees had experienced similar problems with Rivera or any other supervisor, or that Makert was, in any way, acting on behalf of or in the interest of other employees.265 NLRB No. 64The evidence shows that in late April or early May 1979 Makert and Rivera became involved in a dispute when Rivera ordered Makert to put her name tags on boxes of parts which Makert claimed she had not assembled. Several days later Makert told Supervisor Coulson that she had contacted an attorney about the matter and had spoken to three employees who were willing to state that they had seen Rivera remove name tags from her boxes.Coulson reported the co...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
