J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 254 (1969)

J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. Gulistan Division and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.

Cases 10-CA-7261, 10-CA-7323, 10-CA-7364, and 10-CA-7450

October 22, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

BROWN AND ZAGORIA

ORDER

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 Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, J. P. Stevens & Co.,

Inc., Gulistan Division, Statesboro, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

On June 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E.

Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that such allegations be dismissed Thereafter, Respondent, the Charging Party, and the Intervenors' filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.

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 these cases to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations'° of the Trial Examiner.

At the hearing in Case 10-CA-7450, Don F Hughes and approximately 113 other employees of Respondent appeared through counsel and were permitted to intervene, in order to challenge the validity of authorization cards obtained from them by the Union We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (I) by refusing to employ Mary Frances Bradley for discriminatory reasons The record reveals she applied for a job with Respondent before organizational activities commenced At that time, she listed two active union supporters as her relatives on the application form Bradley was then overweight Personnel Manager Harrington told her that ' he couldn't use me on account of my weight for the insurance they were carrying,' and that she would have to lose some weight By April 30, 1968, after the organizational drive began, Bradley had lost approximately 85 pounds Again she applied, telling Respondent she desperately needed a job At this time Harrington asked her if she were related to Charles Waters (a prounion employee) and Truman Delano Cribbs (a union leader found to have been discriminatorily discharged by Respondent on March 26) When she acknowledged being closely related to both, Respondent told her he could not promise her a job Later, on May 6, when Bradley again asked for a job, Harrington told her no job was available and she should not bother coming back The record reveals that after Bradley's April 30 application. Respondent hired nine women On these facts, against the strong background of the antiunion animus, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent refused to employ Bradley because of her relationship to active union supporters in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) and (l) In doing so, we do not rely on Bradley's testimony regarding her conversation with the Mayor of Statesboro after the April 30 application In adopting the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(l) and (3) finding regarding William Gary Akins, we do not rely on the Trial Examiner 's comments regarding Respondent 's failure to withhold salary from Akins during his absence from work Respondent and the Intervenors have excepted to some of the credibility resolutions made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Drv Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) The record reveals that upon learning of the presence of the Union,

Respondent resorted to a campaign of extensive and egregious unfair labor practices in its efforts to thwart the Union 's organizational drive The timing of Respondent's unfair labor practices , commencing almost immediately after the organizational drive began and persisting until after the time of the election , persuades us that the unfair labor practices were calculated to, and in fact did dissipate the majority which the Union acquired between February 18 and March 18, 1968 In these circumstances we believe that a bargaining order ...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here