Extract
Stop & Go Foods, Inc., 1076 (1979)
D[)EI'ISIONS ()OFNA I IONAL LABOR REL.A IONS BOARD Stop and Go Foods, Inc. and Robert Bergen. Case 7
December 14, 1979 DECISION AND ORDERBY C(IAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBIRS PNIII.() ANI) MURPIHY On May 31, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.The complaint herein arises out of the discharge by Respondent of Robert Bergen. the manager of its Ypsilanti store and an admitted supervisor, for his participation in a strike and picketing by the store's employees. The Administrative Law Judge found that this discharge violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with this conclusion and shall dismiss the complaint.Bergen began working for Respondent on April 17,' 1978.2 On April 19, he noticed that one of the two air-conditioning blowers in the store was not working properly. Several days later, he reported the malfunction to his immediate supervisor, Barbara Patterson, who informed him that Respondent would have a repairman look at it. However, no action was taken. On June 5, the other blower broke down, and Bergen again telephoned Patterson, who promised to have someone 'look at it.' A repairman came out within the following week to check the system, but the airconditioner was not repaired.During the next few weeks, Bergen made numerous calls to Patterson inquiring as to when the air-conditioner would be fixed. Patterson told him that 'it was going through the procedure' and she did not know when it would be repaired but that a contractor had been contacted to put in central air-conditioning by July 4. During this period, the temperature inside the The Administrative Law Judge found that Bergen began work on April 22. However, Bergen testified that he began working for Respondent on April 17, and that testimony is consistent with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Bergen discovered the problem with the air-conditioning system on April 19. Accordingly, we hereby correct this error, which does not affect our decision herein.2 All dates herein refer to 1978.store exceeded 100 degrees and several employees asked Bergen when the air-conditioning would be repaired. Bergen advised them of his conversation with Patterson and the promise to have repairs made by July 4. Employees Kathleen Crawford and Kathy Green, among others, also told Bergen that they felt like walking off the job.The central air-conditioning was not installed as promised and on July 5 Bergen again telephoned Patterson and advised her of the situation. Patterson stated that she could make no promises as to when the contractor would appear. Bergen advised the employees of this conversation.3On July 6, Bergen told the day-shift employees that, because of the heat, they would be permitted to take breaks when the store was not busy. Despite this effort to relieve the employees' discomfort, Crawford became ill because of the heat.4After Bergen went home at the 3 p.m. shift change. Crawford and Green told the two evening shift employees, Sandy Dearing and Shirley DeVore, that they intended to close the store because of the heat. Green telephone...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
