Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 64 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Acro Division , Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company and Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-
1887. April 6,1960
ORDER
On March 4, 1960, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Inter-
mediate Report and Recommended Order in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. He did find,
however, that by surveillance of a union meeting, the Respondent en-
gaged in activity in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, but he
stated that, for reasons set forth in his Intermediate Report, he is of
the opinion that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by a
remedial order directed to this single violation. He recommended
that all other allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
The case having been transferred to the Board and no statement
of exceptions having been filed with the Board, and the time allowed
for filing such exceptions having expired,
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and Section 102.48 of the Board's Rules and Regulations-
Series 8, the Board has adopted the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as contained in his report. We
find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to direct a
remedial order to the single violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
All other allegations of the complaint are hereby dismissed.
127 NLRB No. 15.
Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Company, a Division of Inter-
national Telephone and Telegraph Company and Communi-
cation Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
11-RC-1314. April 6, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin L. Ball, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the
petition on the ground that it was prematurely filed. For the reasons stated herein-
after, the motion is denied.
127 NLRB No. 1.