Extract
Robertson, H. H., Company, 1344 (1982)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. H. Robertson Company and Steve R. Martin and James H. Carson and Ross B. Martin International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No.413, AFL-CIO and James H. Carson and Ross B. Martin and Steve R. Martin. Cases 11-CA8945, 11-CA-8981, 11-CA-9313, 11ll-CB-911,I l-CB-912, 11-CB-964, and 1l-CB-916September 21, 1982 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER ANDMEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTEROn September 21, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Howard I. Grossman issued' the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, both Respondent Employer and Respondent Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Charging Party filed answering briefs.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.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,I and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 3Respondent Employer and Respondent Union have 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. 188F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.In the third paragraph of sec. III,E, 3,(D),(2) of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge stated that, 'At lunch, Fowler asked [Ross] Martin, in the presence of his superor, Dowd, what Martin was going to do about the job.' The record, however, reveals that Fowler asked this question of Respondent Employer's area supervisor, Brack, not Ross Martin. In sec. III,E,4,(c),(2) of his Decision the Administrative Law Judge stated that Brack's testimony 'has realistic details and quotations which give in it the ring of truth' whereas it is clear from the context and the Administrative Law Judge's other findings that he was referring to Ross Martin's testimony. In the 14th and 15th pars. of sec. III,, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge stated that employee Steve R.Martin was hired on February 17 and that employee Carson was hired on February 18. The Administrative Law Judge's earlier findings and the record show, however, that Martin and Carson were hired on October 17 and 18, 1979, respectively. Also, at fn. 19 of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge gave an incorrect citation for United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local 878 (Goodyear Tire &Rubber Company). That decision is reported at 255 NLRB 251 (1981). These inadvertent errors do not affect our decision herein.2 In his Conclusion of Law 8, the Administrative Law Judge stated that Respondent Union violated Sec. 8(b)(IXA) and (2) of the Act by refusing to refer supervisor-member Ross Martin to employment. We note that, at the time Respondent Union refused to refer Martin, he was no longer a supervisor. Accordingly, we hereby amend Conclusion of Law 8 by substituting the word 'member' for the words 'supervisor-member.' 3 Par. B,l,(c) of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order requires Respondent Employer to cease and desist from acceding to Re263 NLRB No. 173The Administrative Law Judge concluded, and we agree, that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging its general foreman, Ross B. Martin. This conclusion was based on the following findings, with which we also agree. Respondent Employer had hired Martin on the recommendation of Respondent Union's business agent, Robert Fowler. Beginning in early 1979, and continuing at all times material herein,Martin, a vice president of Respondent Union, was an outspoken advocate of changes in its internal administration. This advocacy earned Martin Fowler's enmity.In the spring of 1979, Respondent Employer's area supervisor, Brack, told Martin that Fowler had been calling Respondent Employer's home office trying to discredit Martin and that Fowler 'would like nothing better than for me to run you off.' In a subsequent conversation, Brack informed Martin that he, Brack, had been receiving calls from his home office and from Fowler and that Brack would probably have to fire Martin if the problems between him and Fowler were not resolved. On a third occasion, Martin asked Fowler, in Brack's presence, why Fowler was trying to get Martin fired when he had recommended Martin for the job in the first place. Fowler replied, 'I can change my mind.' In the fall of 1979, Brack told Martin that Fowler was still calling the home o...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
