190 N.L.R.B. 718; 1971 NLRB LEXIS 761; 77 L.R.R.M. 1305; 1971 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P23,090; 190 NLRB No. 116

 190 N.L.R.B. 718; 1971 NLRB LEXIS 761; 77 L.R.R.M. 1305; 1971 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P23,090; 190 NLRB No. 116

Opinion

 [**1] 

 DECISION AND ORDER

 [*718]  On January 26, 1968, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The Charging Party filed an answering brief.

Thereafter, by Order of April 15, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board remanded the proceeding to Trial Examiner Peterson to consider further Respondent's defense to the 8(a)(5) allegation, by making findings of fact concerning (1) the supervisory status of Shafer and (2) if a supervisor, the impact of Shafer's conduct on the validity of the Union's card majority; and for making any other or additional findings based on the record as supplemented, if necessary, by evidence received at a reopened hearing.

On April 26, 1968, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Decision, also attached hereto, making findings in accord with the remand. He concluded that it was [**2]  unnecessary to take additional evidence because the existing record established that Shafer was a supervisor and that Shafer did not taint the Union's majority by either signing a card or any other conduct. The Trial Examiner also indicated that he would adhere to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in his original Decision of January 26, 1968. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental Decision and a brief in support thereof.

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 thereto, the brief and answering brief, the Supplemental Decision, the exceptions thereto and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts to findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.