Extract
Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Co., 544 (1962)
Report because the Trial Examiner found that all the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint as violations of the Act were not proven . Had the ultimate facts, as alleged in the complaint, been proven, the preelection statements, introduced as background evidence, would have been material in determining whether Respondent had been motivated to take the actions complained of because of antiunion animus.
I find that Foreman Elrod and Assistant Manager Frost , prior to the election, did make statements to the effect that if the Union won the employees would not be laying around and there would be changes made . Also that Frost, Elrod, and Plant Manager McConnell asked some of the employees if they had been approached by union representatives.I do not find that any of Respondent 's representatives ever told an employee that he would not be able to leave the mine for a drink of water or that rent would have to be paid by the occupants of company houses if the Union won the election.I find that Plant Manager McConnell did talk to a number of the employees before the election during which conversation he pointed out the .benefits enjoyed by the employees and asked the employees to give the Company a chance.5 In these conversations McConnell made no threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefits.I do not find that Foreman Elrod told any of the drillers, before the election, that if the Union won they would have to set up their own drills.. In the above findings, ,I have considered the conflicts in the evidence and inherent in the findings is my resolution of what testimony I have credited.(Recommendations omitted from publication.) s Funkhouser Mills had recently been purchased by the Ruberold Company.Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Company and L. H. Sutton and D. L. Sandlin Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Company ; Master Stevedores Association of Texas and its Members and James I.Fagg, Sr. and Houston Maritime Association, Inc. and its Members; Galveston Maritime Association , Inc. and its Members, Parties to the Contract Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Company; Master Stevedores Association of Texas and James I. Fagg, Jr.Locals Nos. 307, 636, 991 and 1273 International Longshoremen's Association, Independent and D. L. Sandlin and L. H. Sutton South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District ; Locals Nos. 307, 636, 991 and 1273 International Longshoremen's Association, Independent and James I. Fagg, Sr. and James I. Fagg, Jr. and Locals Nos. 325, 329, 341, 440, 704, 814, 851, 872, 1029, 1175, 1180, 1214, 1224, 1225, 1306, 1367, 1368, 1391, 1610, 1723, 1758, 1770, and 1818, International Longshoremen's Association, Independent;International Longshoremen's. Association, Independent, Parties to the Contract. Cases Nos. 23-CA-818, 23-CA-849, 23-CA860, 23-CA-862, 23-CB-266, 23-CB-267, 23-CB-270, and 23-CB271. January 25, 1962 DECISION AND ORDEROn February 26 and September 6, 196,0, respectively, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report and Supple135 NLRB No. 38.mental Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent Employers and Respondent labor organizations, except Respondent Local 991, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate and Supplemental Intermediate Reports attached hereto. The Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint as to Respondent Local 991. The General Counsel, Respondent Employers, and Respondent labor organizations filed exceptions to the Intermediate and Supplemental Intermediate Reports and supporting briefs.The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate and Supplemental Intermediate Reports, the exceptions and brief...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
