Extract
Zero Corporation, Zero East Division, 495 (1982)
ZERO CORPORATION
Zero Corporation, Zero East Division and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases I-CA-16142, 1-CA-16183, 1-CA-16536, 1-CA-16806, and l-RC-16391June 29, 1982DECISION AND ORDER* BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMANOn January 15, 1981, Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs,1 and Respondent filed an answering brief in response to the exceptions of the General Counsel and the Charging Party.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,2 and conclusions3 of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) in the face of the Union's organizing campaign among its employees. These violations included an invalid no-solicitation rule, 'On August 19, 1982, the Board granted the General Counsel's motion to modify the Decision and Order by including provisions that would make whole any employees who had been disciplined or had suffered any loses by reason of Respondent's application of the absenteeism/tardiness policy it established on September 14, 1979, which the Board found violated Sec. 8(aXS) of the Act. The Amended Remedy, Order, and notice herein appear as so modified.t The Charging Party excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to order an award of organizing costs it incurred after June 17, 1979, ama result of Respondent's unlawful conduct. We find that the facts in this case do not warrant such a remedy.' The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolution are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Producm Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). In this regard, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that General Manager Wood, had he testified, would not have testified adversely to the interests of Respondent, as a contrary finding would not affect our conclusions herein.I The Administrative Law Judge properly found that on May 25, 1979,Supervisor Lesniak violated Sec. 8(aXl) of the Act by questioning employee Villamaino about the identity of the Union and its organizing prospects among Respondent's employees. He further found that Lesnisk posed similar questions to Villamaino on May 30; however, he failed to nmake any conclusions concerning the lawfulness of these latter questions.For the reasons the Administrative Law Judge found the May 25 questions to be unlawful, we find the May 30 questions to be a violation of Sec. s(aXl) of the Act.262 NLRB No. 64 interrogations creating the impression of surveillance, threats of plant closure, promises of benefits if the employees rejected the Union, and threats of loss of benefits if the employees selected the Union.We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions concerning these violations. We also agree, for the reasons stated below, with the General Counsel and the Charging Party's contentions that the Administrative Law Judge erred in dismissing allegations that Respondent committed additional violations of Section 8(aXl). We further agree with the General Counsel and the Charging Party that the Administrative Law Judge erroneously found that the General Counsel did not establish the Union's majority status as of June 17, 1979, 4 and thus that he also erroneously failed to issue a bargaining order in the proceeding.A. Additional 8(a)(1) Violations The following discussion is based upon the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact with which we find no fault.1. After the religious services, Respondent's general manager, Bill Wood, walked over to employee Waite in the parking lot of the church where they were both members, and commented that he was surprised that Waite's fellow employees, Villamaino and Frew, were so prounion. Waite replied that he did not know what was going on. The conversation then turned to church matters.The Administrative Law Judge found that Wood's statement 'was merely a passing remark preliminary to the real purpose of the conversation, which was to discuss a project which would benefit the church' and thus did not create the impression of surveillance as alleged by the General Cou...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
