Extract
The Deutsch Co., 8 (1969)
The Deutsch Company, Electronic Components Division and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO).
Case 21-CA-7989December 12, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSBROWN AND ZAGORIAOn April 3, 1969, Trial Examiner Louis S.Penfield issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices.' Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a supporting brief, and a request for oral argument.' 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 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 entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.' 'No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's failure to find these unfair labor practices.'This request is hereby denied since, in our view, the record, exceptions and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties 'In the light of our other findings and the remedy provided therefor, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by Supervisor Schum's photographing of union handbilling activity or by Respondent's rule requiring operators to stand while at work We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings of Section 8(aX3) violations. In respect to the unlawful discrimination against employee Frances Montgomery, Respondent asserts that the Trial Examiner erroneously found that there was no explanation in the record for the abolition of Montgomery 's tool crib attendant job. While there is some testimony showing that Respondent had shifted the tool crib attendant's tasks to other job classifications, this evidence does not affect our agreement with the correctness of the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Montgomery In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) by invoking an unlawfully broad no-solicitation rule, we note that even if the language of the rule might be regarded as ambiguous, the manner of its enforcement makes clear that the rule was designed to inhibit all in-plant union activity. In agreeing that the rule violated the Act, Member Zagoria does not however rely on any asserted disparity as between union activity and United Fund solicitation.ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,The Deutsch Company, Electronic Components Division, Oceanside, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified:1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) and substitute the following:'(a) Discharging, laying off, suspending, eliminating overtime, denying wage increases, failing to transfer, or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term and condition of employment, in order to discourage membership in International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO), or any other labor organization, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.'(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership or activities, threatening them with reprisals and promising benefits to dissuade them from union and concerted activities, invoking and enforcing an unduly restrictive prohibition on union soliciation, assisting and inducing employees to repudiate the Union, and imposing more onerous work practices because of the Union.'(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
