Extract
Sata Motor Freight Line, Inc., 614 (1970)
Sala Motor Freight Line, Inc and General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind Cases 15-CA-3569 15-CA-3569-2, 15-CA-3582 and 15-CA-3582-2May 21, 1970 DECISION AND ORDERBy CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINSOn February 10, 1970, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions, and a supporting brief, to the Trial Examiner's Decision General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations 2 ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc , New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall The findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner are based in part upon his credibility determinations to which Respondent excepted After a careful review of the record herein we conclude that the Trial Examiners credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence and accordingly find no basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91 NLRB 544 enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) P Respondent in an exception contends that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced as manifested in his decision This charge of bias and prejudice is not based on any alleged statements of the Trial Examiner which might indicate that he had prejudged this case or upon his conduct or rulings made at the hearing but is directed to his findings and conclusions and the analysis of the facts upon which they are based as set forth in the Trial Examiners Decision Possible errors of this sort which we do not find herein in any event are hardly sufficient to establish bias and prejudice Accordingly we reject this contention Flambeau Plastics Corporation 167 NLRB 735 fn I affd 401 F 2d 128 (C A 7) take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner s Recommended Order 3 , Par 2(a) of the Trial Examiners Recommended Order is modified to read as follows (a) Offer to Milous Pittman Charles Fassitt Harold Jefferson and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled The Remedy The fourteenth indented paragraph of the Appendix is modified to read as follows WE WILL offer Milous Pittman Charles Fassitt Harold Jefferson and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEMAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner With all parties represented, this proceeding was tried before me in New Orleans, Louisiana, on September 30 and October 1, 1969, on an amended complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc , herein called the Respondent ' At issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have been duly considered Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my observation of the witnesses who testified on the stand, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONSI THE RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS Respondent, a Louisiana corporation with its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, is engaged in the transportation of freight by motor carrier, operat-' ing as a link in interstate commerce by performing interlining services with respect to commodities in interstate commerce During the an...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
