Westinghouse Electric Corp., (1978)

• Date: 23 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