NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,446, HAYMAN ELECTRIC, INC. and LOCAL UNION 211, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS and LOCAL UNION NO. 592, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS., (Aug. 25, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 25, 1994)

It is undisputed that the Respondent was shown authorization cards for its employees. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to reach the judge’s discussion at fn. 8 of his decision concerning whether it would have been significant to the question of majority status if the cards had not been shown.

Member Cohen agrees with the judge’s ruling that under the rationale of Casale Industries, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,913] 311 NLRB 951 (1993), the Respondent is time-barred from questioning the Union’s majority status as of the signing of the recognition agreement. He affirms the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act solely on that ground.

The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. In this regard, we reject the Respondent’s contention that the judge’s crediting of NECA Chapter Manager Knecht’s testimony over that of Walter Hayman is based on a factual error concerning Hayman’s past involvement with the Union. The judge noted that Hayman was once an assistant business manager for the Union and would have more than just a passing knowledge of labor relations. The Respondent correctly asserts that there is no evidence that Hayman was ever an assistant business manager for the Union. However, the judge’s credibility resolution is not based solely on this error. The judge’s principal reasons for crediting Knecht’s denial that he offered any explanation to Hayman about the Union’s cover letter and recognition agreement is that the explanation Hayman attributed to Knecht was unbelievable and the documents standing alone made complete sense. We find that this provides sufficient support for the judge’s credibilty resolution.

The General Counsel excepts to a factual error by the judge and to the judge’s failure to make a factual finding. The correct date for the recognition agreement executed by Hayman with IBEW Local 211 is November 27, 1990. Further, the record shows that the Respondent, Janney Electrical Contractor, Inc., signed a Letter of Assent binding it to the NECA agreement with IBEW Local 211 for residential work, effective December 1, 1989.

The label for the notice for the Respondent, Pyramid Electric, Inc., is corrected to read “Appendix D.”