Extract
Robinson Aviation, Inc., 196 (1952)
excluding all auto mechanics, body men, painters, apprentices and helpers, salesmen, clerical employees, parts department employees, guards, professional employees, service managers, assistant service managers, shop superintendents, foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Case No. 8-RC-1571All lubrication men and garagemen of Michaels, Inc., in Cleveland,Ohio, but excluding all auto mechanics, body men, painters, apprentices and helpers, salesmen, clerical employees, parts department employees, guards, professional employees, service managers, assistant service managers, shop superintendents, foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] ROBINSON AVIATION, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL. Case No. 2-CA-18792. May 00, 1962Decision and Order On November 9, 1951, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendaI Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers In connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].99 NLRB No. 46.ROBINSON AVIATION, INC. 197 tions of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent with this Decision and Order.21. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, by discharging Dressler and LeForestier because of their activities in behalf of the Union. In addition to the circumstantial evidence detailed in the Intermediate Report, this finding is directly supported by the credited testimony of Dressler and LeForestier that at the time of their discharge on November 10, 1951, they were told by Ranslow, the Respondent's plant manager, that they were being discharged because he would not tolerate their union activities. Regarding this statement by Ranslow, the Trial Examiner considered it a derivative rather than an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1). As no exception has been filed to...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
