Extract
Thermo King Corp., 296 (1980)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thermo King Corporation' and International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFLCIO-CLC. Cases 10-CA-13049, 10-CA-13350, and 10-RC-11090January 16, 1980DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTIONBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINSAND PENELLOOn June 27, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Phil W. Saunders issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions, and Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a brief in answer to the Charging Party's exceptions.' 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.4 ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Thermo King Corporation, Louisville,Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OFELECTIONIt is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots have not been cast for International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIOCLC, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of all the employees, in the unit herein involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.MEMBER JENKINS, concurring in part and dissenting in part:I join Chairman Fanning in adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act when Foreman Joe Walden 247 NLRB No. 48 told employee Robert Wright that he would be cutting his throat if he voted for the Union. Unlike my colleagues, however, I find that this substantive violation justifies invalidating the election and directing a second election. See my dissenting opinion in Caron International,Inc., 246 NLRB No. 179 (1979).The name ofRespondent appears as amended at the hearing.: On September 10, 1979, the Associate Executive Secretary notified the Charging Party that its brief in support of exceptions was untimely filed and would not be considered by the Board.On October 3, 1979, the Charging Party filed a motion for special leave to file an answering brief to Respondent's cross-exceptions and a brief captioned 'Petitioner-Charging-Party Response to Respondent's Cross-Exceptions.' Respondent filed a letter in opposition to the Charging Party's motion. The Charging Party's brief is accepted for the limited purpose of answering the questions raised in Respondent's cross-exceptions; such brief has not been considered, however, insofar as it exceeds the scope of Respondent's crossexceptions. Consistent therewith, the Charging Party's motion is granted in part, and denied in part. See Sec. 102.46(f)(1) of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,as amended.' The Charging Party and Respondent have except...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
