NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,489, VEMCO, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 29, 1994)

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. We also find no merit in the Respondent’s allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge. Thus, we perceive no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence. Similarly, there is no basis for finding that bias and prejudice exist merely because the judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel’s witnesses. NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., [16 LC ¶65,207] 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949).

In adopting the judge’s crediting employee Anna McMurtry’s testimony that she was directed not to distribute copies of the November 13, 1991 Certification of Representative on company property on December 6, 1991, we have carefully reviewed the record, including the memorandum prepared by Human Resources Manager David Maxwell dated November 20, 1991, and find that the Respondent’s evidence is insufficient to overcome the judge’s credibility resolution in light of the other evidence supporting that finding, particularly McMurtry’s consistent position that these events took place on December 6.

In adopting the judge’s credibility findings with respect to employee Kimberly Lucas, we find it unnecessary to rely on his statement that her testimony reflected her gratitude to the Respondent for past favors and that she was “in pari delicto” with the individuals whom the Respondent discharged.

In adopting the judge’s finding that the April 20, 1992 walkout by employees was protected, concerted activity, we rely also on Mike Yurosek & Son, Inc., [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,779] 310 NLRB 831 (1993). Member Cohen finds it unnecessary to rely on that case and expresses no view concerning it.

In adopting the judge’s finding that the complaint allegation that the Respondent unlawfully promulgated an overbroad no-distribution rule is not barred by Sec. 10(b), we find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s alternative finding that the allegation was sufficiently related to other charges filed against or then pending against the Respondent.

We find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s discussion of the circumstances in which a walkout is protected by Sec. 502 of the Act, since there is no claim that the walkout here is governed by that provision.

We grant as unopposed the Respondent’s motion to correct the transcript.

The Respondent has also requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.