Extract
Storktowne Products, Inc., 974 (1968)
Storktowne Products, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-2717
February 20, 1968 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSFANNING AND BROWNOn November 8, 1967, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation 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 further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, the Charging Party and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision of the Trial Examiner, and supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed a brief in answer to the exceptions and brief of General Counsel.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 threemember 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 3 ORDERPursuant 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, Storktowne Products,Inc., Columbia, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' The Trial Examiner found that Respondent's March 28 promise of 'considering other benefits in the future' did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In the absence of exceptions, we adopt this finding pro forma.We agree that Respondent's reference in his February 13 speech to what would happen '[i]f it were a union shop' was violative of 8(a)(1), since the statement implied a withdrawal of privileges should the employees select the Union.As it was delivered in the context of other conduct found unlawful herein, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent 's February LABOR RELATIONS BOARD17 speech, stressing the futility of collective bargaining and warning employees that it would be to their 'serious harm' to select the Union as their representative, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.z Exception has been taken by the Charging Party to the Trial Examiner's finding that the 2-week June layoff of Alexander was not in violation of the Act. In our view, the testimony credited by the Trial Examiner establishes that Alexander was disturbing and interfering with the production of other employees, and that this was the reason for the disciplinary action. Thus, Respondent had from time to time received complaints about difficulties with Alexander experienced by supervisors and other employees, many of whom were on a piece-rate basis. The report upon which Respondent acted and relied in administering the disciplinary layoff was made by one of Respondent's best operators who, according to the credited testimony, was so disturbed by Alexander's confrontations and use of abusive language that she threatened to quit rather than tolerate Alexander's annoying interruptions. In view of our finding, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's comments, in footnote 35 of his Decision, to the effect that an unduly broad no-solicitation rule may be regarded as pro tanto valid to the extent it interdicts solicitation during work time. We also find it unnecessary to pass upon his further comment that sporadic collections permitted by Respondent do not establish disparity of application of the rule if such conduct is forbidden when related to union activity.3 Exceptions have been taken to some of the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner which were based to a large extent on demeanor of witnesses. It is the Board's policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility less, as is not the case here, the clear preponderanceof all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION Preliminary Statement STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Trial Examiner: This case, involving a complaint issued on May 1, 1967,' by General Counsel through the Regional Director for Region 26 of the National Labor Relations Board, based upon a charge filed on March 21 by the above Union, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
