Ultra-Sonic De-Burring, Inc., 1060 (1977)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ultra-Sonic De-Burring, Inc. of Texas and Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFLCIO. Case 20-CA-1 1915
December 9, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On September 2, 1977, Administrative Law Judge William J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief 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, to modify his remedy,2 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
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 Respondent, Ultra-Sonic De-Burring, Inc. of Texas, Redwood City, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
To the extent that it has not already done so, offer Indiana Lee Zoller and Shirley Holt immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if their former positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them in the manner set forth above in the section of this Decision entitled 'The Remedy.' ' 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
I Respondent has 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 resolutions are incorrect. StandardDry Wall Products, 233 NLRB No. 165
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Nor do we find merit in Respondent's contention that, because the Administrative Law Judge generally discredited the Employer's witnesses and credited the General Counsel's witnesses, his credibility resolutions are erroneous or attended by bias or prejudice. N.LR.B. v. PittsburghSteamship Co., 337 U.S. 656 (1949).
We have further considered Respondent's contention that the Administrative Law Judge has evidenced a bias against Respondent's position. We have carefully considered the record and the attached Decision and reject these charges.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that a bargaining order is appropriate to remedy Respondent's unfair labor practices which have precluded the holding of a free and fair election. It is clear Respondent embarked upon its course of unlawful conduct on August 6, 1976, and the Union attained majority status on August 10, 1976. Accordingly, we shall impose Respondent's bargaining obligation as of the later date. Bandag,
Inc., 228 NLRB 1045 (1977). For the reasons given in his separate opinion in Beasley Energy, Inc., 228 NLRB 93 (1977), Chairman Fanning would date the bargaining order prospectively.
2 We shall delete from the second paragraph of 'The Remedy' the following language: 'dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been assigned or hired to perform the work which Zoller had been performing prior to her termination on August 9, 1976, and which Holt had been performing prior to her termination on August 13, 1976.' We shall modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly.
For the computation of interest see, generally, Isis Plumbing&Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are engaging in surveillance of your activities on behalf of Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you regarding your union activities nor regarding the union activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to cease business operations if you select Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, as your collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT tell you that other employees are being discharged because they have supported or are supporting Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you for engaging in activities on behalf of Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
ULTRA-SONIC DE-BURRING WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with any of your rights which are guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Indiana Lee Zoller and Shirley Holt immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if their former positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain with Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in a unit of:
All production and maintenance employees of Ultra-Sonic De-Burring, Inc. of Texas, including truckdrivers, employed at its Redwood City, California, facility; excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
ULTRA-SONIC DEBURRING, INC. OF TEXAS DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard by me in San Francisco, California, on April 5, 1977. On November 16, 1976,1 the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing, based on an unfair labor practice charge filed on September 13, amended on November 15, alleging violations of Section 8 (aX1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., '§ 151, et seq., herein called the Act.
All parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Based on the entire record, on the briefs filed on behalf of the parties, and on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
I Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1976.
2 Though the answer admits the allegation in the complaint that Clarkson was president and general manager of Respondent, Clarkson FINDINGS OF FACT
JURISDICTION At all times material, Ultra-Sonic De-Burring, Inc. of Texas, herein called Respondent, has been a Texas corporation with an office and place of business in Redwood City, California, where it engages in the business of cutting and de-burring plates and parts for other business entities. During the past calendar year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations within the State of California, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for business firms located within the State of California, each of which firms purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of California and/or sold goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. Therefore, I find that at all times material,
Respondent has been an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IL. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED At all times material, Communications Workers of America Local 9455, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ISSUES 1. Whether Respondent, through Robert Clarkson,2 violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act by announcing an increase in pay rates to encourage employees to abandon their support of the Union, created the impression that employees' union activities were under surveillance, interrogated employees regarding their union activities and the union activities of other employees, and threatened cessation of business operations if the employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
Whether Respondent discharged Indiana Lee Zoller on August 9 and Shirley Holt on August 13, refusing thereafter to reinstate them, because of these employees' membership in or activities on behalf of the Union or because these employees had engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, thereby violating Section 8(aX3) and (I) of the Act.
Whether the unfair labor practices in which Respondent may have engaged are so serious and substantial in character and effect as to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP