Bruns Garage, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 363 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

BRUNS GARAGE, INC .. -- 363
E. Conclusion
Upon consideration of all the pertinent factors in this case, and
with particular emphasis being placed upon the terms of the various
collective-bargaining agreements covering the work in dispute, the
integrated nature of the work and its most efficient operation, and
the prior practice at the plant, we shall not disturb the Company's
assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the
Pressmen's Union. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing juris-
dictional dispute by awarding the offset preparatory work of camera
operation, darkroom work, opaquing and stripping, and platemaking
to the pressmen, represented by the Pressmens' Union, rather than the
compositors, represented by Local 4, ITU, or the stereotypers, rep-
resented by the Stereotypers' Union. In making this determination,
we are assigning the work in question to employees represented by
the Pressmen's Union, and not to the Pressmen's Union or its members.
,Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy
which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act :
Pressmen employed by the Company who are represented by Al-
bany Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 23, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, are en-
titled to perform the offset preparatory work of camera operation,
darkroom work, stripping and opaquing, and platemaking which is
performed in connection with newspaper work at the Company's plant
in Albany, New York.
Bruns Garage, Inc. and International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and its Local 443. Case No. 30-CA-17 (formerly'
13-CA-5598). August 19, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 4, 1963, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor, practices
within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it cease and
148 NLRB No. 42.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom-
mended dismissal of the complaint thereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent, the Charging Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Decision and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor'
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and-
Brown].
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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act when, on March 6, 1963, Supervisor Moeller
said to employee Biggins that if it were not for this "mess you would
be making $3.00 an hour rather than your current rate of $2.30 an
hour." _
As this case progressed to hearing, and at the hearing itself, the Re-
spondent, with permission, repeatedly moved for a bill of particulars.
Iii renewing this request at the hearing, and at the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case, the Respondent moved for a dismissal of all
charges of violations of Section 8 (a) (1). The Trial Examiner then
asked the General Counsel what evidence had been adduced in sup-
port of those allegations, and in the ensuing colloquy the General
Counsel enumerated several instances, but, although specifically asked
by the Trial Examiner about the above alleged incident, did not men-
tion that incident as being encompassed within the evidence supporting
the Section 8(a) (1) allegations. The Trial Examiner thereupon
denied Respondent's motion to dismiss, but in so doing indicated not
only that the _ General Counsel's preceding enumeration of alleged
violations constituted an exact joinder of issues, but also that he was
disposed to conclude that no violations of Section 8(a) (1) had been
established. The Respondent raised no defense to the allegation in
issue.
Taken together, the factors mentioned above, and most particularly
the remarks of the- Trial Examiner at the conclusion of the General
Counsel's case, require, dismissal of this aspect "of the case. - As a re=
silt of these statements by 't'he 'General Counsel and the, Trial ' Ex-
aminer, no defense was put forward by the Respondent, as to the al-
BRUNS GARAGE, INC 365
]eged July 6 incident and the matter was not fully litigated i Accord-
ingly, we shall reverse the Trial Examiner's conclusion finding a viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act based on that incident,' and we
shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges any violations of
,Section 8(a) (1)
2 The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
did not violate Section 8(a) (3) and (1) by suspending employee
Riggins on two occasions and employee Holcomb on another
3 The iecord reflects, and the Trial Examiner found, that from
March 22, 1963, when the Union was certified, until May 3, 1963, the
paities baigauied in apparent good faith The prunicipal issue sep-