Extract
Welding & Industrial Products, Ltd., 881 (1967)
WELDING & INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS Welding & Industrial Products, Ltd. & Carbonic Products Corp. and Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers, Local 996. Cases 37-CA-400, 37-CA-427, and 37-CA-428
October 19, 1967 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA On April 14, 1967, Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,, finding that the 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.The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and brief, and Respondent filed a brief in opposition.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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as herein modified.We agree with the Trial Examiner that, although the Union had cards from a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit for several months before the election, which it subsequently lost, it did not seriously request bargaining of a responsible agent of the Respondent. There being no valid demand to bargain by the Union and consequently no refusal by the Respondent, we likewise find that no 8(a)(5) violation occurred.2 The Trial Examiner, however, found a bargaining order appropriate 'We note that the Trial Examiner inferred knowledge by the ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
