Extract
United Packing Co. of Iowa, Inc., 878 (1971)
United Packing Company of Iowa , Inc., and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 961. Cases 27-CA-2796 and 27-RC-3680January 15, 1971 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERSFANNING AND BROWNOn June 25, 1970, Trial Examiner George Christensen 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 dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. The General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and crossexceptions and a brief in support thereof.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 as modified below.We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promising employees specific improvements in wages and working conditions if they rejected the Union in the election held herein, and by threatening them with economic reprisals if the Union should win.The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent made good its preelection promises by instituting specific wage and benefit improvements immediately after the election, which the Union lost by one vote.Those improvements were granted while objections to conduct affecting the results of the election were pending and unresolved and the possibility that the i Accordingly, we shall include in our remedial order a provision that the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct However, this is not to be construed as a requirement that the Respondent rescind such benefits as election would be set aside was indeed real. The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to evaluate these postelection events and to determine whether su...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
