Extract
Del E. Webb Construction Co., 377 (1951)
DEL E . WEBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 377 in the aforesaid unit, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
5. By such conduct, including its unilateral acts found above, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , and has thereby engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] DEL E. WEBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and WILLIAM H. PICKARD INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, HOISTING AND PORTABLE LOCAL No. 101 OF GREATER KANSAS CITY AND VICINITY, A. F.OF L. and WILLIAM H. PICKARD. Cases Nos. 17-CA-251 and 17-CB20. July 23, 1951Decision and Order On April 17, 1951, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Company and the Respondent Unions filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made at the hearing by the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,3 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and additions noted below.i 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 [ Members Houston , Reynolds, and Styles].2 We find no merit in the Respondents' exceptions to the denial by the Trial Examiner of the Respondent Company's motion to vacate the hearing on the ground that it was...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
