Extract
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 714 (1962)
We shall therefore set aside the election of February 10, 1955, and direct that a new election be held.
[The Board set aside the election held on February 10, 1955.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local #517, AFL and Ambroise Desjardins and Gil Wyner Construction Company, Party to the Contract. Case No. 1-CB-283.May 12,1955 DECISION AND ORDEROn December 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications and additions noted below.1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by including in its contract with Gil Wyner Construction Company the clauses quoted in the Intermediate Report which plainly exceed the limited form of union security permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Although the Respondent does not dispute the Trial Examiner's finding that the clauses in question do not satisfy the statutory requirements, it contends that they were not presently operative but were to take effect in the future when permitted by Federal law and therefore may not be found to be violative of the Act. We find no merit in this contention....See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
