Extract
Walter Carpet Mills, Inc., 691 (1981)
WALTER CARPET MILLS, INC. 691
Walter Carpet Mills, Inc. and Building Material & DECISION Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-STATEMENT OF THE CASE housemen & Helpers of America. Cases 21- FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge:CA-18257, 21-CA-18926, and 21-RC-16127 On October 3, 1979, Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers Local 420, International Brotherhood of TeamDecember 14, 1981 sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,' DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION filed a petition in Case 20-RC-16127 seeking certification OF SECOND ELECTION as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees of Walter BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Carpet Mills, Inc.,2 located at City of Industry, CaliforZIMMERMAN nia. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election an election was conducted on NovemOn July 20, 1981, Administrative Law Judge ber 30, 1979. The results were that, of approximately 424Frederick C. Herzog issued the attached Decision eligible voters, 188 cast votes for the Union and 209 cast in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- votes against it, with the 10 challenged ballots being inceptions and a supporting brief. sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Union Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the thereafter filed objections to the conduct of the election, nan L aoRraionsA a ae , tJh e but failed to present evidence in support of the allegaNational Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tin made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tions made in the objections. Accordingly, the Regional tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Director for Region 21 recommended that the Union's thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. first four objections be overruled. The fifth, and last, obThe Board has considered the record and the at- jection was dealt with as follows.tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief On October 9, 1979, the Union filed a charge in Case and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and 21-CA-18257 alleging the commission by the Company conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section to adopt his recommended Order.28(aX1) of the Act. A complaint was issued based hereon.Subsequently the Regional Director issued his report on ORDER the election objections, as mentioned earlier herein, and, noting that the findings of his investigation into the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor charge underlying the complaint in Case 21-CA-18257Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- demonstrated to him the sort of conduct alleged by the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Union's fifth objection to the election, he concluded that Order of the Administrative Law Judge and the allegations made in Objection 5 could best be rehereby orders that the Respondent, Walter Carpet solved in a hearing in conjunction with the complaint alMills, Inc., City of Industry, California, its officers, legations of Case 21-CA-18257. Accordingly, he ordered agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action the cases consolidated for hearing.set forth in the said recommended Order. On April 10, 1980, the Union filed a second charge, in IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election and Case 21-CA-18926, against the Company, alleging that held in Case 21-RC-16127 be, and it hereby is, set empyee Amelia Salaarwas discharged by the Compaaside, and that said case be, and it hereby is, re- ny on April 9, 1980, because of her prior activities on aside, and thatsaid case be, and it hereby is re behalf of the Union. The Regional Director subsequently manded to the Regional Director for Region 21 to issued a complaint based on this new charge, and consolconduct a new election when he deems the circum- idated its allegations for hearing with those of the cases stances permit the free choice of a bargaining rep- previously mentioned.resentative. These were heard by me at a hearing conducted in [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- Los Angeles, California, on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980. All note omitted from publication.] parties were present and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the briefs. Based n the record thus compiled, my observaAdministrtive Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judges resolutions with respect to credi- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, and my considbility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- eration of the arguments advanced in the post-trial briefs vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Stondard Dry Wall ProdurcL filed by the p...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
