Toledo Commutator Co., 973 (1970)

Docket Number: 07-CA-07187

Linked as:

Extract

Toledo Commutator Co., 973 (1970)

TOLEDO COMMUTATOR CO.

Toledo Commutator Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-7187

January 28, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER

By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS

On October 27, 1969, Trial Examiner Anne F.

Schlezinger issued her Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner' s Decision . The General Counsel filed a brief in reply to Respondent's exceptions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 brief, and the entire record in this case,' and hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER

Pursuant 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, and orders that Respondent, Toledo Commutator Company, Owosso, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

'Respondent's request for oral argument is denied because, in our opinion, the record , exceptions, and brief adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties.

'We affirmatively construe the Trial Examiner 's Remedy to mean that the backpay for each employee is to be the amount she would normally have earned from the time that a request for reinstatement was first made by the employee or on her behalf . The Trial Examiner found that the employees, after their initial request for reinstatement, may have called the plant to report that they were sick. We do not construe such action by the employees as a second strike, but merely an attem...

See the full content of this document