Torrington Construction Co., 1540 (1978)

Extract

---

Torrington Construction Co., 1540 (1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Torrington Construction Company, Inc. and Local 648, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 3-CA-5800 and 3-CA-6126

May 10, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

JENKINS AND PENELLO

On March 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge John P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.

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, as modified below, to modify the remedy so that interest is to be computed in the manner prescribed in FloridaSteel Corporation,231 NLRB 651 (1977),1 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.

The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in various respects, including a failure to sign the collective-bargaining agreement the parties had previously orally agreed upon.2

The Administrative Law Judge also found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it discharged employees Rock and Lancto. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that these terminations violated Section 8(a)(l). We further find, however, as explained below, that the discharges also violated Section 8(a)(3).

As fully set forth by the Administrative Law Judge,

Respondent operates a 'redi-mix' concrete plant at its Keeseville, New York, location,3 except during the winter months when operations normally cease.

In May 1974, it reached agreement on a collectivebargaining contract with the Charging Party.4

Article XII of the contract stated as follows:

It shall not be a violation of this Agreement, and it shall not be cause for discharge or disciplinary action in the event an employee refuses to enter upon any property involved in a primary labor I See, generally, Isis Plumbing &Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716(1962).

2 Respondent contends that the charge alleging the refusal to bargain was filed more than 6 months after the refusal occurred and was thus outside the 10(b) limitations penod. Although the initial request to sign the contract was made on April 19, 1974, we rely on the fact that the Charging Party also requested that Respondent sign the contract on August 28, 1975, within the effective dates of the agreement. In these circumstances, we find 235 NLRB No. 211 dispute, or refuses to work behind any primary picket line, including the primary picket line of Unions [sic] party to t...

See the full content of this document

---