The Westgate Corp., 306 (1972)

Extract

---

The Westgate Corp., 306 (1972)

The Westgate Corporation and Public Service, Production & Maintenance Employees' Local Union No.

1057, affiliated with Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-4085

April 13, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING

AND PENELLO

On February 7, 1972, Trial Examiner David S.

Davidson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order.

ORDER

Pursuant 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, The Westgate Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a charge filed on August 30, 1971, by Public Service, Production & Maintenance Employees' Local Union No. 1057, affiliated with Laborers' International Union of North America,

AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union , a complaint issued on October 20, 1971. The complaint alleges that Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees engaged in the performance of the Base Housing Administration contract at the Laredo Air Force Base, hereinafter referred to as the Laredo AFB or the Base, by engaging in dilatory and evasive tactics, by refusing to meet and bargain face to face with the Union, by repudiating agreements previously reached, by refusing to designate anyone to deal with the Union as Respondent's bargaining representative in Laredo, and by refusing to furnish books and records to support its position of inability to pay increases in wage rates, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In its answer Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.

A hearing was held before me in Laredo, Texas, on November 15, At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived and the parties were given leave to file briefs which have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent.

Upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT

Respondent is a service contractor, with its principal office and place of business located in Oakland, California, and is engaged in the business of providing services for various United States military installations, one of which is the Laredo AFB at Laredo, Texas. At the Laredo AFB Respondent has a contract known as the Base Housing Administration contract which runs from April 1, 1971, to March 31, 1972. From April 1, 1971, to the time of the hearing Respondent employed an average of 17 employees 40 hours a week pursuant to its contract for which it was reimbursed by the Department of Defense at the rate of $3.41 per man-hour for services supplied and had thus received revenue of approximately $74,000. I find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdict...

See the full content of this document

---