Extract
San Jose Bavarian Motors, 127 (1977)
SAN JOSE BAVARIAN MOTORS
Don Lucas International, Inc. d/b/a San Jose Bavarian Motors and Michael Steven Fulton. Case 20-CA- 10986April 20, 1977 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND MURPHYOn October 12, 1976, 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 a brief in answer to General Counsel's exceptions.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 finds merit in certain of the General Counsel's exceptions. Accordingly, the Board has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with discharge if they sought union representation, by interrogating employees regarding union activities, and by attempting to influence voting by promising to increase health benefits.' We further find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by its discriminatory discharge of Michael S. Fulton.Michael S. Fulton was hired as an apprentice in July or August 1975.2 Fulton testified that during his hiring interview with Ed Bleyer, Respondent's service manager, he was told that if he had anything to do with the Union he would be fired 'so fast his head would swim.' After Fulton was hired, he and four other employees decided to seek union representation and Fulton went to the union office to find out how to obtain I The Board's usual practice, upon finding that an employer has violated the Act by attempting to influence voting by promising to increase health benefits, is to impose a cease-and-desist order. Therefore, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge. in accordance with standard Board procedure, we are imposing the appropriate remedial order with respect to that violation.2 Fulton testified that he was hired sometime in July. Ed Bleyer,Respondent's service manager, testified that Fulton was hired on August 13, 1975. Respondent's documentary evidence, which includes Fulton's employment application. shows August 13, 1975., to be the hiring date. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge s finding that Respondent's documentary evidence established Fulton's hiring date as July 13, 1975, is erroneous. In any event, whether he was hired on July or August 13 is of little...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
