Carrizo Manufacturing Co., Inc.

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