Universal Syndications, Inc., (2006)

Extract

---

Universal Syndications, Inc., (2006)

Universal Syndications, Inc. and Maggie Engelhart. Case 8-CA–35901

July 28, 2006

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Schaumber and Kirsanow

On April 10, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the judge’s decision.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.

ORDER

The recommended Order of the administrative law judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.

Dated, Washington, D.C. July 28, 2006

Robert J. Battista , Chairman

Peter C. Schaumber, Member

Peter N. Kirsanow, Member

(seal) National Labor Relations Board

Steven Wilson, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Todd T. Morrow, Esq., of Canton, Ohio, for the Respondent.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

Michael A. Rosas, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 8–9, 2005. The charge was filed by Maggie Engelhart on June 7, 2005; the first amended charge was filed August 29, 2005; and the complaint was issued August 31, 2005.[1] The complaint alleges that the Respondent, Universal Syndications, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by threatening adverse action if employees discussed certain conditions of employment with other employees, subjected an employee to surveillance because the employee engaged in protected concerted activity, and subsequently terminated that employee for engaging in such activity. In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent denies it violated the Act and further attributes its actions to the Charging Party’s culpable conduct.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following

Findings of Fact

i. jurisdiction

The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, with an office and place of business in Canton, Ohio, is a distributor of numismatic and religious collectibles. Annually, the Respondent sells and ships from its Canton facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning ...

See the full content of this document

---