Extract
Seyfert Foods Co., 800 (1962)
Because the Employer's construction period is now at peak , eligibility will be determined by the usual payroll period.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections.CHARLES H. SEYFERT, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A SEYFERT FOODS Co. and LOCAL No. 40, BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS OF AMERICA,AFL. Case No. 13-CA-1495. August 13,1954Decision and Order STATEMENT OF THE CASEUpon a charge and an amended charge duly filed by Local No. 40,Bakery & Confectionery Workers of America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel' and the Board, through the Acting Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued his complaint dated August 13,1953, against Charles H. Seyfert, an individual d/b/a Seyfert Foods Co., herein called Seyfert or the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and the complaint, together with the notice of the hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that : (1) The Respondent discriminatorily discharged Martha Christine Johnson on or about June 15, 1953, and at all times thereafter has discriminatorily neglected, failed, and refused to reinstate her; (2) the Respondent caused a number of its employees to engage in a concerted work stoppage or strike in protest against Johnson's discharge; (3) the Respondent, on or about June 15 and 16 and July 9, 1953, rejected the striking employees' unconditional requests for reinstatement and, beginning on or about June 17, 1953, hired replacements for the striking employees; (4) the Respondent increased the wages of the nonstriking employees in order to discourage their joining in the strike; (5) the strike was an unfair labor practice strike or, alternatively, was an economic strike converted and prolonged by 'This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing.109 NLRB No. 115.SEYFERT FOODS CO. 801 the Respondent into an unfair labor practice strike; and (6) the Respondent uttered various threats against the striking employees because of their union membership and participation in the strike.On September 21, 1953, the Respondent filed his answer to the complaint, admitting that his operations affected interstate commerce but reserving the right to contest the jurisdiction of the Board, denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practice...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
