Westinghouse Electric Corp., (1978)

Date23 March 1978
DECISIONS
OF
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD
Westinghouse Electric
Corporation
and
United
Elec-
trical, Radio
&
Machine
Workers of
America.
Case
5-CA-8380
March
23,
1978
DECISION
AND ORDER
BY
CHAIRMAN
FANNING
AND
MEMBERS
JENKINS
AND
PENELLO
On
October
18,
1977,
Administrative
Law
Judge
John
F.
Corbley
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
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
brief
and
has
decided
to
affirm
the
rulings,
findings,'
and
conclusions
2
of
the
Administrative
Law
Judge,
to
modify
his
remedy,
3
and
to
adopt
his
recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant
to
Section
10(c)
of
the
National
Labor
Relations
Act,
as
amended,
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board
adopts
as
its
Order
the
recommend-
ed
Order
of
the
Administrative
Law
Judge
and
hereby orders
that
the
Respondent,
Westinghouse
Electric
Corporation,
Richmond,
Virginia,
its
offi-
cers,
agents,
successors,
and
assigns,
shall
take
the
action
set
forth
in
the
said
recommended
Order.
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
credibili-
ty
unless the clear
preponderance
of
all
of
the
relevant
evidence convinces
us
that
the
resolutions
are incorrect.
Standard
Dry
Wall
Products,
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.
2
For
the
reasons
stated
in
their
dissenting
opinion
in
Essex
International,
Inc.,
211
NLRB
749 (1974),
Chairman
Fanning
and
Member
Jenkins
concur
in
the
adoption of
the
Administrative
Law
Judge's
conclusion that
Respondent
violated
Sec.
8(a)(l)
of
the Act
by
maintaining
a
rule
prohibiting
employees
from
soliciting
their
fellow
employees
concerning
matters relating
to
their
Sec.
7
nghts
dunng
nonwork
times
at
the
plant.
3
See
Isis
Plumbing
&
Heating
Co.,
138
NLRB
716
(1962),
for
rationale
on
interest payments.
DECISION
STATEMENT
OF
THE
CASE
JOHN
F.
CORBLEY,
Administrative
Law
Judge:
A
hearing
was
held
in
this
case
on
May
12,
1977,
pursuant
to
a
charge
filed
by
United
Electrical,
Radio
&
Machine
Workers
of
America,
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
Union or
the
Charging Party,
on
January
24,
1977,
which
was
served
on
Respondent by
registered mail
on
the
same
date
and
on
a
complaint
and
notice
of
hearing
issued by the
Acting
Regional
Director
for
Region
5
of
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board,
which
was
likewise
duly
served
on
Respondent.
The
remaining portions
of
the
complaint,
which
were
not
dismissed
by
bench
order
at
the
hearing,'
allege
that Respondent
violated
Section
8(a)(3)
and
(1)
of
the
Act
by discharging
Kenneth
L.
Wray,
Jr.,
on or
about
January
19,
1977,
and
also
violated
Section
8(a)(1)
of
the
Act
by
maintaining
and
enforcing
a
certain
no-solicitation
rule
at
all
pertinent
times herein.
In its
answer
to
the
complaint,
Respondent
has
denied
the
commission
of
any
unfair labor
practices.
For
reasons
which
appear
hereinafter,
I
find
that
Re-
spondent
has
violated
the
Act
essentially
as
charged
in
these
allegations
of
the
complaint.
At
the
hearing
the
General
Counsel
and
Respondent
were
represented
by
counsel.
All
parties
were
given
full
opportunity
to
examine
and
cross-examine
witnesses,
to
introduce
evidence,
and
to
file
briefs.
Briefs
have
subse-
quently been
filed
by
the
General
Counsel,
the
Charging
Party,
and
Respondent
and
have been considered.
Upon
the
entire
record2
in
this
case
including
the
briefs
and
from
my
observation
of
the
witnesses,
I make the
following:
FINDINGS
OF
FACT
I.
THE BUSINESS
OF
RESPONDENT
Respondent,
a
Pennsylvania
corporation,
is
engaged
in
the
repair
of
electrical
motors
and
generators
at
its
Richmond,
Virginia,
location,
the
only location
involved
herein.
During
the
12
months
preceding
the
issuance
of
the
complaint,
a
representative
period,
Respondent purchased
and
received,
in
interstate
commerce, materials
and
sup-
plies
valued
in
excess
of
$50,000
from
points
located
outside
the
State
of
Virginia.
At
all
times
material
herein,
Respondent
is,
and
has
been,
an
employer
as
defined
in
Section
2(2)
of
the
Act,
engaged
in
commerce
and
in
operations
affecting com-
merce
as
defined
in
Section
2(6)
and
(7)
of
the
Act,
respectively.
I On
Respondent's
motion at
the
hearing,
and without objection
by
the
General
Counsel
and
the Charging
Party,
I dismissed
a
certain
allegation
of
the
complaint
(par.
5(a))
that
Respondent interrogated
its
employees
in
violation
of
Sec.
8(aX
I)
of
the
Act.
2 Errors
in
the
transcript
have been
noted
and
corrected.
235
NLRB
No.
51
356

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT