Sterling Manufacturing Co., 892 (1968)

Extract

---

Sterling Manufacturing Co., 892 (1968)

Dumas, Inc. d/b/a Sterling Manufacturing Company and International Union, United Automobile,

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-4115

2. Delete the words 'engage in spying, or' from the third indented paragraph of the Appendix.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein.

February 16, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER

By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On September 20, 1967, Trial Examiner Harry H. Kuskin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.' ORDER

Pursuant 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 the Respondent, Dumas, Inc. d/b/a Sterling Manufacturing Company, Springfield,

Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified:

1. Add the following as paragraphs 1(c) and (d), the present paragraph 1(c) being relettered as paragraph 1(e):

'(c) Creating the impression of engaging in surveillance.' '(d) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization, by discriminating as to the hire, tenure, or any other term or condition of employment of any of its employees.' I We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the activities of the Respondent's supervisors on November 22, 1967, did not constitute surveillance and shall dismiss that allegation of the complaint. Cf Milco inc., 159 NLRB 812.

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

HARRY H. KUSKIN, Trial Examiner: This case was heard at Springfield, Ohio, on April 18 and- 19, 1967. A complaint issued herein on February 8, 1967, presenting the questions of whether Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. More particularly, the complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 8(a)(1),

Respondent has since on or about September 6, 1966, interrogated its employees concerning their union activity;

engaged in surveillance; created the impression of engaging in surveillance; and threatened employees with reprisals if International Union, United Automobile,

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, was successful in its organizational campaign. And as to the violations of Section 8(a)(3), the complaint alleges that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Curtis Boyd on November 25, 1966, and Dorothy Rhoades on November 28, 1966, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them...

See the full content of this document

---