Machine Tool & Gear, Inc., (1978)
| Date | 25 August 1978 |
MACHINE
TOOL
AND
GEAR,
INC
Machine
Tool
and
Gear,
Inc.
and
International
Union,
United
Automobile,
Aerospace
and
Agricultural
im-
plement
Workers
of
America, UAW.
Case
7-CA
13699
August
25.
1978
DECISION AND
ORDER
By
CHAIRMAN
FANNING
AND
ME
MBERS
JENKINS
AND
PENEl.l.O
On
February
27, 1978,
Administrative
Law
Judge
Bernard
Ness
issued
the
attached
Decision
in
this
proceeding.
Thereafter,
Respondent
filed
exceptions
and
a
supporting
brief.
Pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
Section
3(b)
of
the
National
Labor
Relations Act,
as
amended,
the
Na-
tional Labor
Relations
Board has
delegated
its
au-
thority
in
this
proceeding
to
a
three-member
panel.
The
Board has
considered
the
record
and
the
at-
tached
Decision
in
light
of the
exceptions
and
brief
and
has
decided
to
affirm
the
rulings,
findings.'
and
conclusions
of
the
Administrative
Law
Judge
and
to
adopt
his
recommended
Order,
as
modified
herein.
The
Administrative
Law
Judge
found,
inter
calia,
that
Respondent
violated
Section
8(a)(1)
of
the
Act
by
interrogating
employees
concerning
their
union
activities or
the
union
activities
of
other
employees.
by
threatening
plant
closure
if
the
Union
was
select-
ed
as
the
bargaining
representative,
by
threatening
employees
with
discharge
or
failure
of
reinstatement.
and
by
granting
a
Christmas
bonus
to
induce
the
em-
ployees
to
renounce
the Union.
The
Administrative
Law
Judge
also
found
that
Respondent
violated
Sec-
tion
8(a)(3)
of
the
Act
by
discharging
Stephen
Stan-
ley
and
Gregory
Stone
and
by
laying off
or
terminat-
ing
certain
employees.
We
agree with
the
Administrative
Law
Judge's
findings.
In
view
of
Respondent's
substantial
violations
of
the
Act,
we
also
agree
with the
Administrative
Law
Judge's
finding
that
a
free
and
fair
election
is
unlike-
ly
in
the
circumstances
of
this
case.
Accordingly,
we
adopt
his
recommendation
that
a
bargaining
order
be
issued
to
remedy
the
Respondent's
unfair
labor
practices.
Unlike
the
Administiative
Law
Judge,
however,
we
find
that
Respondent's bargaining
obli-
gation
began
on
January
14,
1977,
the
date
the
rec-
ord
establishes
that
the Union,
having
previously
se-
The
Respondent
has
excepted
to
certain
credlhilits
findings
made hs the
Administrative
Law Judge
It
is
the
Board's
established
pohIi
not
to
isecr
rule
an
Administrative
Law
Judge's
resolutions
with
respect
to
credlbhilit
unless
the
clear
preponderance
of
all
of
the
relevant
evidence
conlIces
us
that
the
resolutions
are
incorrect.
Standalrd
Dr'
Hu
ll
Proda.,,
i
I/,
.
l1
NLRB
544
(1950).
etifd
188
F.2d
362
((
A. 3.
1951)
We
hase carefidl,
examined
the
record and
find
no
basis
for
reversing
his
findings
cured
majority
support
in
the
appropriate
unit.
de-
manded recognition
in
the
context
of
Respondent's
contemporaneous
course
of
unlawful
conduct.
In
connection
with the
foregoing findings,
we
also
find
that
Respondent
violated
Section
8(a)(5)
of
the
Act
by
refusing
to
recognize
and bargain
with
the
Union
on
and
after
January
14,
1977.
Although
the
complaint
did
not
specifically
allege
a
violation
of
Section
8(a)(5),
the
record
discloses
that
the issue
was
litigated
at
the
hearing.
Thus,
the
complaint
alleged,
inler
alia,
that
a
majority
of
the
employees
in
the
appropriate
unit
had
designated
the
Union
as
their
exclusive
bargaining
representative
by
on or
about
November
24,
1976.
and
that Respondent
engaged in
various
conduct
violative
of
Section
8(a)(I)
and
(3)
in
order
to
undermine
the
Union's status
and
render
an
uncoerced
election
impossible.
In
support
of this
allegation,
as
well
as
the
General
Counsel's
theory
that
a
remedial
bargaining
order
is
necessary,
the
record
contains
the
Union's
demand
for
recognition
in
the
form
of
a
letter
dated
Janaury
12.
1977.
testi-
mony
that Respondent
received
the
Union's
demand
on
JanuarN
14
but
failed
to
respond,
and
the
authori-
zation
cards
signed
by
23
of
40
employees
in
the
ap-
propriate
unit.'
Accordingly,
all
of
the
elements
nec-
essary
to
prove
a
violation
of
Section
8(a)(5)
of
the
Act were
fully
litigated
and
established
with respect
to
the
General
Counsel's
theory
that
a
bargaining
order
is
necessary to
remedy
the
unfair
labor
prac-
tices.
effective
January
14.
1977,
the
date
of the
de-
mand
for
recogrnition.
4
AMI
N[)iI)
CO()N(C
ISIONS
O.
Lw'
In
accord
with the
above
findings,
we
adopt
the
Administrative
Law
Judge's Conclusions
of
Law,
with
the
following
modifications:
Insert
the
following
as new
Conclusions
of
Law
5
and
6,
and
renumber
the
present conclusions
5
and
6
as
8
and
9,
and delete
present conclusion
8.
5.
At
all
times
material
herein,
since
November
24.
1976.
the
Union
has
been
the
exclusive
represen-
tative
of
the
employees
in
the
below-described
ap-
propriate
unit
within
the
meaning
of Section
9(a)
of
the Act.
6.
By
refusing
since
January
14,
1977,
and
at
all
times
thereafter
to
recognize
and
bargain
with
the
\I
full
time
adnl
regul.ar
part-lime
producltion
and
maintenance
emplos-
ees
ermpil\
ed
bh
the
rmploser
at
it,
lacilii\
l*cated
at
2801
S Beech
DadI.s
)eairhborn
lleight,.
Michigan,
hut
excluding
salespersons.
guards
and
super-
l~sors
as defined
in
thle
Ac
We
find to1l
merit
in
Respondentl'
exceptions
regarding
the
salhditl
of
certaiii
card,.
I
his,
ve
.dopl
thie
Administratlive
law
Judee's
finding
that
Stone
Is
nit
a
super
l,-or:
hence
the
cards
he
obtained
are
valid
Fuirther-
ilur0e.
te
find
no,
ei.dellre
Ihilt
.ns
card
signer
was
told
that
the
sole
pur-
pose
of
the
card
uais
1o
oh
tlln atn
eletlion
4 1 Iit' lo O
I
&
Die
Mlanuwti
ulring
(
a.
225
NlRB
I
lO
(1976):
Red
Burn
Si
sent.
In,
224
NL
RB
1586
197`)
237
NLRB
No.
172
1109
To continue reading
Request your trial