Extract
Roma Baking Company, 24 (1982)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roma Baking Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 688. Case 14-CA-13835July 30, 1982 DECISION AND ORDEROn October 27, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Norman Zankel issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions.The National Labor Relations 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 conclusions of the I In its exceptions, Respondent contends that no competent evidence was presented that it meets the Board's jurisdictional standards. We find no merit in this contention. Thus, Respondent was a party in a prior Board representation proceeding, Roma Baking Company, Case 14-RC9176 (Decision and Direction of Election dated June 12, 1980). At the hearing in that case, Respondent, an employer engaged in both nonretail and retail sales, entered into stipulations that during the 12-month period ending December 31, 1979, a representative period, it purchased from other employers engaged in commerce goods and services in an amount in excess of S50,000. Based thereon, the Regional Director for Region 14 found that Respondent met both the Board's statutory and discretionary standards for the assertion of jurisdiction. Although the Regional Director's decision was subsequently vacated upon withdrawal of the petition, we note that Respondent did not seek to contest the Regional Director's findings concerning the jurisdictional facts by filing a request for review of his decision nor does Respondent now argue that the Regional Director's findings with respect to those facts were erroneous or that changed circumstances require a reexamination of those facts. Further, at the unfair labor practice hearing, Respondent's attorney stated that 'for purposes of this hearing we are admitting [jurisdiction].' Moreover, jurisdictional allegations sufficient to bring Respondent within the Board's statutory and discretionary jurisdictional amount standards were contained in par. 2(c) of the complaint. In its original answer to the complaint, which set forth enumerated paragraphs corresponding to those of the complaint,Respondent answered the allegations of par. 2(c) by stating that it 'admits the allegations of paragraph 4(c).' We note that the complaint contains no par. 4(c). Thus, it appears that Respondent either intended to admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint or that it filed no specific answer to those allegations in which case, under Sec. 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, such allegations may have been deemed to be admitted. Finally, we note that Respondent did not attempt to amend its answer to deny the allegations of jurisdiction in the complaint until after the Administrative Law Judge had raised the matter at the hearing and, although the Administrative Law Judge afforded Respondent the opportunity to support its amended answer by stating that he would consider any evidence offered by it to controvert the jurisdictional findings in the prior representation case, Respondent introduced no such evidence. Accordingly, we find that the assertion of jurisdiction here isproper.Respondent has alleged, in essence, that the Administrative Law Judge's resolutions of credibility are the result of bias. After careful examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that this allegation is without merit. There is no basis for finding that bias and partiality existed merely because the Administrative Law Judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
