Extract
United Aircraft Corp., 278 (1969)
United Aircraft Corporation (Pratt & Whitney Division ) and Lodge 1746 and Canel Lodge 700,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and Local 1746,International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 1-CA-6475 and 1-CA-6602December 16, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND ZAGORIAORDERPursuant 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 the Respondent, United Aircraft Corporation (Pratt & Whitney Division), Hartford,Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the complaint as to which no violations have been found be, and hereby are, dismissed.' On August 8, 1969, Trial Examiner Ivar H.Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging 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. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended the dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Parties filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs, and the Charging Parties filed a reply 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 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations= of the Trial Examiner.3 'The General Counsel and the Charging Parties have filed motions to consolidate the instant cases with United Aircraft Corporation, (Pratt & Whitney Division.) Cases I-CA-5681, which are presently before the Board. The motions are denied In deciding the instant case we have taken notice of our findings and conclusions in Case 1 -CA-5681, 179 NLRB No.160.'The Respondent argues, in effect, that the Board's powers may not be invoked or should not be exercised in this case because of the existence of a provision in the collective-bargammg agreement authorizing arbitration in the event of employee grievances, including discharges In this connection, the existence of a grievance -arbitration procedure in a collective agreement does not oust the Board of its power, nor relieve it of its public duty, to act to inhibit unfair labor practices cognizable under the Act. Section 10(a) of the Act explicitly provides that the power of the Board with respect to unfair labor practices 'shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, law, or otherwise .' In cases of this type, the Board has been unwilling to defer to available arbitration, where the parties themselves have chosen not to resort to that forum; we find no justification for abandoning our statutory authority here. See, e.g.,Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., 173 NLRB No. 12; The Coachman's Inn, 147 NLRB 278, 306.'Even if, as Respondent contends, it had a good-faith belief that the three individuals involved had violated the contractually agreed-upon no-solicitation rule, the Trial Examiner found they had not in fact done so In these circumstances, Respondent's good-faith belief would be no defense. N.L R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U S. 21. See also Marion Manufacturing Company. 161 NLRB 55, fn. 1.'We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's confiscation of Antonio Pegorer's union membership and dues deduction card , occurring as it did, during working time , was not unlawful. The instant case is to be distinguished from the seizure found violative of Section 8(a)(1) in United Aircraft Corporation (Pratt & Whitney Division,) 179 NLRB No. 160, for there, unlike in the instant case, the seizure occurred during the employee's lunch break, and, hence, on nonworking time.TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEIvAR H. PETERSON, Trial Examiner: On March 10, 1969, the Acting Regional Director for Region 1 issued a consolidated amended complaint against United Aircraft Corporation (Pratt & Whitney Division), herein called the Respondent, based upon charges filed by Lodge 1746 and Lodge 700, in Case I-CA-6475, on October 1, 1968, and a charge in Case 1-CA-6602 filed on January 31, 1969, by ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
