Extract
Roy E. Hanson, Jr., Mfg., 251 (1962)
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 23, 1962, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding 137 NLRB No. 38.that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in another unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with regard thereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.The Board 1 has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,z conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.ORDERThe Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner as its Order.1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three - member panel [ Chairman -McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown] 2 We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate report which do not affect the Trial Examiner ' s findings, conclusions , and recommendations, or our agreement therewith : Firth's testimony that he was trying to obtain the Union ' s proposal from Tanski before giving Tanski the information he iequested , quoted under section III, A. 3 preceding a discussion of shat occaried on March 28, 1961, appears to relate to conduct prior to March 28, whereas the record shows that it relates to the telephone conversation Firth had with Tanski upon Tanski's receipt of the March 28, 1951, letter In addition, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's use of terms such as 'a nineteenth century attitude' and 'niggardly' to characterize the Respondent or its bargaining concessions We do, however , concur in his evaluation of the negotiations and his ultimate findings that the Respondent' s concessions were minimal and (lid not establish its good faith in bargaining N L R H v Reed & Pr ince Man It faeturing Company, 205 F 2d 131, 134 (C A. 1) INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDERSTATEMENT OF THE CASEThese proceedings are pursuant to the issuance of a consolidated complaint, on October 26, 1961 , which complaint was based on charges filed by Elias Mantillas on September 11, 1961 , and by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on September 14, 1961 . The complaint alleges that Roy E Hanson, Jr., Mfg., herein called the Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)(3), and (5 ) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act.Specifically, the complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by a speech of Respondent's president on about June 25 , 1961 , in which be threatened to replace any employee who engaged in a strike to protest Respondent's failure to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union; on or about September 7, 1961 , discharged Elias Mantillas because of his membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union: and since March 15, 1961, failed to bargain in good faith with the Union as the certified representative of the employees in an appropriate unit. The Respondent's answer, filed on November 8, 1961 , denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held in Los Angeles, California , on December 6, 7, and 8, 1961 , before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were present at the hearing. All who entered appearances were afforded opportunity to participate in the hearing. Only the General Counsel and the Respondent participated actively.ROY E. HANSON, JR., MFG. 253At the close of the hearing, the General Counsel moved to conform the complaint to the proof as to minor matters. The motion was granted without objection. The Respondent then moved to strike an exhibit which had been introduced in evidence in support of the alleged independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on the ground that the exhibit contained a speech which was protected under Section 8(c) of the Act. Taking this to be a motion to dismiss the complaint as to such allegation, I reserved ruling thereon. Although I see no reason to strike the exhibit and now deny the motion as made, I find that the exhibit does not support the allegation of the complaint that the speech constituted a violation of the Act, and, as hereinafter stated, I shall recommend dismissal of that portion of the complaint. Following these motions, the Respondent argued orally on the record. The Gener...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
