Carrizo Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 170 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Salant Corporation, d/b/a Carrizo Manufacturing
Co., Inc. and Obreros Unidos Independientes.
Cases 23-CA-4938-1 and 23-CA-4938-2
January 15, 1975
ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On October 22, 1974, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding' in which the Board adopted the
findings of the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent violated Section 8(axl) and (3) of the
Act by discharging Carlos D. Juarez, Jr., Pedro
Patlan, and Rebecca Patlan, and that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) when its supervisor, Bill L.
McClain, interrogated Juarez on December 8, 1973,
and by its grant of benefits announced December 12,
1973. Thereafter, on November 20, 1974, the Re-
spondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an
accompanying brief in which it moved that the
Board reverse the Administrative Law Judge's
findings of fact and conclusions of law in their
entirety. On December 9, 1974, Respondent filed an
addendum to its 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 having duly considered the matter,
It is hereby ordered that the Respondent's motion
for reconsideration and reversal of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's findings in their entirety be, and it
hereby is, denied as it contains matters previously
considered and found wanting, and otherwise lacks
merit.2
1 214 NLRB No. 21 (1974).
s In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respon-
dent violated Sec. g(axl) and (3) of the Act by discharging Carlos D.
Juarez , Jr., and Jose Patlan , we accepted his subsidiary finding that Juarez
and Patlan were employees rather than supervisors . Thus , we did not need
to speculate as to whether their discharge would have been an independent
violation of Sec. 8(axl) had we found them to be supervisors rather than
employees.
After finding Respondent guilty of unfair labor practices in this case, the
Administrative Law Judge made reference to the Respondent's past conduct
at other plants. It would appear, however, that the Administrative Law
Judge did not rely on this past conduct in arriving at his unfair labor
practice findings. In any case, in adopting the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that Respondent violated the Act in the instant case, we have not
given consideration to Respondent's past conduct at its other divisions.
216 NLRB No. 38