Extract
Weston's Shoppers City, Inc., 234 (1971)
Weston's Shoppers City, Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union Local 345, AFL -CIO,. Case 3-CA-4053
March 24, 1971 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDYOn October 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, 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 alleged in the complaint and recommended that these allegations be dismissed.Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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 three-member 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,2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in surveillance of a union meeting, coercively interrogating employees, threatening reprisals, and promising and granting economic benefits. The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Edward Laprade and Thomas Tallant. We adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion as to the discharge of Laprade.However, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Tallant was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.It is undisputed that Tallant was a good employee and that Respondent had no complaints about the quality of his work; in fact, he was known in the store t The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 as 'Tom Terrific.' On March 14, ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
