Extract
Tawas Industries, 318 (2001)
Tawas Industries, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL- CIO. Case 7-CA-39862
September 28, 2001DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND WALSHOn June 2, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Martin J. Linsky issued the attached decision. The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. Contrary to the judge, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize Tawas Independent Workers Association (TIWA) as an affiliate of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and by refusing to allow a UAW representative to attend a grievance meeting at the grievant's request. We also find, contrary to the judge, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by predicting that other employers would not give their business to the Respondent if the employees voted to affiliate TIWA with the UAW and by posting a notice encouraging employees to report the protected conduct of other employees to management. In other respects, we affirm the judge's decision.1 BackgroundThe Respondent's employees have been represented for many years by TIWA, a small independent union. The parties' most recent collective-bargaining agreement was effective from October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1999. On March 16, 1997,2 the Respondent's employees voted to affiliate TIWA with the UAW.3 TIWA immedi- ately notified the Respondent of the results of the election. Citing "substantial questions regarding the validity of [the] vote to affiliate," the Respondent informed TIWA that it was "investigating and reviewing [the] matter." The Respondent stated that it would continue to recognize TIWA as the employees' bargaining representative and to operate under the existing collective-bargaining agreement. 1 No exceptions were filed to the judge's findings that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) by suspending Kenneth MacMurray, and that the Respondent did not violate Sec. 8(a)(1) by telling MacMurray that he had to choose between it and TIWA. The judge inadvertently failed to specify the formula for awarding make-whole relief for MacMurray or to provide for the payment of interest. We shall make the appropriate modifications in our Order. We shall also modify the recommended Order and notice to be consistent with Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144 (1996); Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997), and Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142 (2001). 2 All dates refer to 1997. Shortly after the affiliation vote, a number of employees evidently began to have second thoughts about the wisdom of affiliation and/or the manner in which the affiliation election was conducted. A movement to undo the effects of the election ensued. It culminated on April 3 when employees presented the Respondent a petition, signed by 23 of the 30 to 33 members of the bargaining unit, stating that they did not wish to be affiliated with the UAW. That same day, the Respondent informed TIWA that it had concluded, on the basis of its investigation, that the affiliation election did not meet the due process requirements of the Act, and that a majority of the employ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
