Extract
The Lima Lumber Co., 696 (1969)
The Lima Lumber Company and Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 908, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 8-CA-51 10June 16, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On November 29, 1968, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged 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. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions with supporting briefs.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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations only to the extent consistent herewith.We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Sharp, the discharged employee, is not entitled to reinstatement and is to be reimbursed for lost earnings only for the 2 hours after his termination.There is no dispute as to the facts. On July 29,Sharp made a delivery of lumber and as he left the yard the load on his truck shifted , apparently evidencing an improper securing of the load. At the site his truck became stuck in the mud and another truck had to be sent to pull it out. When Sharp returned to the yard at about 8:30 a.m ., he was warned of discharge if another instance of his load shifting occurred. Immediately following this, he was asked about being the instigator of the union activity in the plant, and upon his denial of this role, he was peremptorily discharged. Two other employees were promptly told of Sharp' s discharge, were asked whether they had signed union cards, and were threatened with loss of work and earnings if the Union came in . At approximately 10:30 a.m., the customer to whose site the earlier delivery had been made reported to Respondent's assistant manager that lumber was scattered over the jobsite, and the assistant manager responded that the employee responsible had already been fired.176 NLRB No. 90The Trial Examiner properly rejected the Respondent's claim that Sharp was discharged because of the incident in making the delivery, or because ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
