Extract
Sunset Lumber Products, 1172 (1962)
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' WE WILL make the employees named below whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Stephen A. Clemins Milton Greyling John Plichta, Jr. Aloysius Hermann James E. Landolt Frank L. Knabe Edward Karjala All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members in good standing of any labor organization.I(EARNEY, & TRECKER CORPORATION,Employer.Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be,altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.Glenn Roennecke, d/b/a Sunset Lumber Products and International Woodworkers of America, Local 5-5, CIO. Comae No.36-CA-489. August 06, 1955 DECISION AND ORDEROn February 7, 1955, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter3 The Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner's refusal to sustain its motion that all evidence relating to its unlawful discharge of Charles Rilea be stricken from the record on -the ground that, at the time of the discharge, the Respondent was not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent commenced construction of its lumber mill early in 1954. This work was completed on June 30, 1954, the date of Rilea's discharge. The Respondent's operations consist of cutting lumber to specified dimensions which is then sent to a local independent mill to be planed and loaded for shipment to the Respondent 's customers. During the 10 working days prior to July 1, 1954, the Respondent ran 40,000 feet of lumber through its mill which was valued at $2,000 prior to being planed. On July 2, the day on which full-scale production commenced, the first shipment of lumber left the Respondent's mill for the planer. Intermingled with the shipment of lumber that day was the 40,000 feet of lumber previously cut. The parties stipulated that the Respondent 's out-of-State shipments from July 2 to September 3, 1954, totaled $157,594.66. We do not agree with the Respondent 's contention that its activities at the time of Rilea 's discharge involved nothing more than local construction work, nor do we agree that its operations subsequent to'Rilea's discharge should not be considered in assaying the impact of the Respondent 's unfair labor practice upon inter113 NLRB No. 115.mediate Report, the exceptions and brief of the Respondent, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted hereafter.1. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Charles Rilea on June 30, 1954, because of his union activity. We also adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the General Counsel failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Allen Lowe was discriminatorily discharged on September .30, 1954. We shall accordingly dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that Lowe's discharge constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.2. The complaint alleged that the Respondent unlawfully threatened its employees on July 2, 1954, and September 23, 1954. The record fails to establish that any threatening remarks were uttered on the latter date. The Trial Examiner did find, however, that the Respondent's foreman, Clark, informed an unidentified group of employees on some undisclosed date that, if the mill 'went union,' the employees might receive less overtime because according to his understanding of union policy all hours worked on Saturdays were computed as overtime work regardless of the number o...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
