Extract
Sopps, Inc., 296 (1969)
Sopps, Inc. and Industrial Workers of Allied Trade,
Local 199, N.F.I.U. Cases 29-CA-1230 and 29-CA-1230-2April 10, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On September 11, 1968, Trial Examiner Henry S.Sahm issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and supporting briefs, and the 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 this case 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 the case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to their union activities, and by promising, and subsequently granting wage increases in order to induce its employees not to engage in Union activities.' 2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, for reasons stated in his Decision, that the Respondent discriminatorily laid off, and subsequently discharged, employee Marie Fontana in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. We do not agree, however, for reasons stated below, with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the discharges of Elizabeth Sullivan and Adolph Sjogren were similarly violative of Section 8(a)(3).Elizabeth Sullivan- Sullivan commenced employment with the Respondent Company in We also adopt, for reasons stated in his Decision , the Trial Examiner's recommended dismissal of allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by engaging in surveillance of union meetings, and by warning employees to refrain from union activity August 1958. She was discharged on February 6, 1968, allegedly because of incompetency In this connection, the Respondent argues that since Sullivan was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,,her discharge, for whatever reason, was not in violation of the Act. We agree.The record reflects that there are about 14 employees in the Respondent's plant, divided almost evenly between the production department and the shipping department. The top echelon of the Company is composed of Julius Jacobs,Respondent's president, who is in the plant 3 days a week, and Roslyn Rudin Jarmel, whose duties are essentially those of a bookkeeper, but who is in charge of the plant in the absence of Mr. Jacobs, although as, the record shows, she visits the shop areas only infrequently.Sullivan oversaw the production of from 2 to 6 female employees, whose work consisted of folding and packaging paper napkins, a job which pays the minimum wage. Sullivan did some production work, but, in addition, she distributed the pay envelopes, assembled sample books for the salesmen's use, and ordered labels, bags, and cellophane. Unlike the other employees, who were hourly paid at the prevailing mi...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
