Young's Metal Fabricators & Roofing, Inc., 978 (1979)

Extract

---

Young's Metal Fabricators & Roofing, Inc., 978 (1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Young's Metal Fabricators and Roofing, Inc. and Young's Sheet Metal and Roofing Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 66, AFL-CIO, affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFLCIO. Cases I -CA-7307 and I -CA-7391

April 18, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS

AND PENELLO

On October 26, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Phil W. Saunders issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief in opposition to Respondents' exceptions and in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondents, Young's Metal Fabricators and Roofing, Inc., and Young's Sheet Metal and Roofing, Inc., Asheville, North Carolina, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified:

I. Delete paragraph (b) and reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge.

I we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondents bargained directly with employees in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) and (5), as the record evidence is insufficient...

See the full content of this document

---