Shirlington Supermarket, Inc., 470 (1962)
of the Act, to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of Lee E. Parker or of any other employee because he is not a member of this labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Teller Construction Co. in the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain from engaging in concerted activities as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Lee E. Parker whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
OPERATIVE PLASTERERS' AND CEMENT FINISHERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 555, AFL,
Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
SHIRLINGTON SUPERMARKET, INC., AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES , SHIRLEY FOOD STORE No. 1, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE No. 2, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE No. 5, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE No. 6, INC., AND WESTMONT SUPERMARKET , INC. and LOCAL 1501 , RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AFL. Case No. 5-CA-775. October 25, 1954
Order Denying Motion for Review On July 19, 1954, the Board issued an Order herein denying the Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Order dated April 29, 1954. On August 6, 1954, the Respondent filed a motion for review of the Board's Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
In its motion for reconsideration, the Respondent contended, inter alia, that the second election held among the Respondent's employees I was conducted after speeches by both the Respondent and the Union on company time to massed assemblies of employees within 24 hours of the election, and therefore that that election should be set aside under the Peerless Plywood rule? In its Order denying the motion for reconsideration, the Board found that this contention was a newly raised objection to conduct affecting the results of the second election, and as it had not been filed within 5 days of that election as required by the Board's Rules and Regulations, it was untimely. Accordingly, the Board did not pass upon the merits of this contention. The Respondent now contends...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP