New York Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY
New York Telephone Company and Gladstone A.
Boxill. Case 29-CA-2448
July 29, 1975
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On June 4, 1973, the National Labor Relations
Board, Member Kennedy dissenting, issued a Deci-
sion and Order in the above-entitled proceeding.'
The Decision adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge,
as contained in his Decision of December 5, 1972,
and ordered that Respondent take the action set
forth in the recommended Order of the Administra-
tive Law Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the No-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board's Decision held that Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) by refusing to permit employee
Galdstone A. Boxill, on February 17, 1971, to be rep-
resented by a union representative as he requested at
an interview with a supervisor which Boxill had rea-
sonable cause to believe would result in disciplinary
action, by threatening Boxill with reprisals if he did
not meet with Respondent's supervisor, and by sus-
pending Boxill from employment 3 days because of
his refusal to meet without such representation. The
Board ordered Respondent to cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to remedy them.
Thereafter, on June 25, 1973, Respondent filed a
motion to reconsider and modify order and also re-
quested reconsideration by the full Board. Respon-
'203 NLRB 1153.
685
dent contended in its motion that the Administrative
Law Judge erred in rejecting as an exhibit the current
collective-bargaining agreement between Respon-
dent and Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, on the ground that the agreement was
executed 1 year after the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint. Respondent argued that the
Board had not considered whether the Union, in its
current agreement, had waived the employees' right
to representation, a question then pending for initial
decision by the Administrative Law Judge in New
York Telephone Company, Case 2-CA-12757. It fur-
ther argued that should the Board hold in Case 2-
CA-12757 that the Union had waived the employees'
rights by conduct with respect to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, the effect of that agreement-
also applicable in this case-would affect the Board's
Order, which operates prospectively.
Thereafter, on February 27, 1975, the parties were
advised that in view of the decisions of the United
States Supreme Court in Weingarten, Inc.2 and Qual-
ity Manufacturing Company,' the Board would accept
statements of position with respect to the impact of
those decisions on the subject case . On April 8, 1975,
Respondent filed a letter statement of position in
which it renewed its earlier motion to reconsider and
modify the order.
In view of our Decision and Order in New York
Telephone Company, Case 2-CA-12757, 219 NLRB
679, issued today, in which we find that the
Union, in its bargaining negotiations leading to the
current collective-bargaining agreement, did not
waive the employees' right to representation, we deny
Respondent's motion as lacking in merit.4
It is hereby ordered that Respondent's motion to
reconsider and modify order be, and it hereby is, de-
nied.
2 N.L.R B v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975).
3 International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Upper South Department,
AFL-CIO v . Quality Manufacturing Company, 420 U.S. 276 (1975).
For the reasons stated in our Decision in New York Telephone Company,
219 NLRB 679, In. 1, we deny Respondent's request for reconsideration by
the full Board.
219 NLRB No. 137