Harrison Iron & Metal Co., 581 (1966)

DECISION AND ORDER

On January 26, 1966, Trial Examiner Arthur Christopher, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be 158 NLRB No. 61.

dismissed. Thereafter, the 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modifications :

[Add the following to paragraph 1(c) and to the last full paragraph of the notice :

[', 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.' [The Board dismissed the complaint insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein.] 1 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.

In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that employees Young, Reams , Oliver, and Barfield were discharged in violation of the Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, we do so on the basis of the Trial Examiner 's finding that in discharging these employees , the Respondent was principally motivated by antiunion considerations . Such finding is supported by the following evidence in the re...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here