Extract
Waynline, Inc., 1698 (1957)
Waynline, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-2854. February 25, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER
On August 29, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, a copy of which is attached hereto, finding that the Respondent,had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean.] 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 the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Waynline, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :1. Cease and desist from :(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, except as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.(b) Interrogating, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), its employees concerning their membership, affiliation, or sympathy with the above or any other union.(c) Stating to employees that it knows who the union adherents are or otherwise suggesting that their union activities are under surveillance.(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing i Respondent contends that Stewart was discha-mmd for cause inasmuch as he did not report his absence as required by company rule. 'Ply o'idence does not establish clearly either the existence or content of such a rule. [lowever, assuming a rule requiring reporting, we find that Stewart had complied with the rule by notifying Thornton, his foreman, of his sickness and anticipated absence the day previous to his discharg...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
