Extract
V. E. Anderson Manufacturing Co., 459 (1970)
V. E. ANDERSON MFG CO V. E. Anderson Manufacturing Company and Local 424, Sheet Metal Workers ' International Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-3443 and 26-CA-3483
July 7, 1970 DECISION AND ORDERBy MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 24, 1970, Trial Examiner Marion C.Ladwig issued his Decision in these proceedings, finding that 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 Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the allegations of the complaint pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.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 threemember 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 herein.The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(I) of the Act when Plant Manager Carden allegedly treatened to fire employees Gannon and Miller if the employees walked out again. Carden denied making the foregoing statement and gave a different version of the incident and the Trial Examiner found it unnecessary to resolve the conflict in the testimony but dismissed this allegation of the complaint on the apparent ground that Carden's subsequent apology constituted an immediate retraction of the statement which was sufficient to nullify its coercive effect Assuming arguendo that such a statement was made, we do not agree that Carden's apology, which was general in nature, factually or legally would have amounted to a retraction of the 459 specific threat As the credibility issue on this point is unresolved and the finding of a violation in this matter in any event would be cumulative, we find it unnecessary to make any finding on this point ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, V. E. Anderson Manufacturing Company, Woodbury, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASEMARION C LADWIG, Trial Examiner: These consolidated cases were tried at Woodbury, Tennessee, on November 19-21, 1969,' pursuant to charges filed by Local 424, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on August 15 and September 15 (the latter charge amended on November 3), and pursuant to a consolidated complaint issued on October 1 (and amended at the trial). The primary issues are whether the Respondent, V. E. Anderson Manufacturing Company, herein called the Company, (a) postponed establishing a second storm door line at its plant during the Union's organizing drive in order to discourage unionization, (b) discriminatorily laid off and delayed recal...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
