NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,586, FRANKLIN IRON & METAL CORP. and RONALD L. HILL and JOHN GUNTER., (Dec. 16, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 16, 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 judge’s findings.

In challenging the judge’s crediting of Charging Party Hill’s testimony, the Respondent points out that Hill is a convicted felon. Our review of the transcript reveals that during cross-examination Hill admitted having pled guilty, within the previous 10 years, to the felony of carrying a concealed weapon. While the judge does not refer to Hill’s conviction in his decision, he acknowledged on the record the relevance of such conduct for purposes of impeachment under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and presumably took it into account in assessing Hill’s credibility. We note further that Hill’s testimony is in substantial part corroborated by Charging Party Gunter. Thus, we find that the evidence of Hill’s felony record provides no basis for reversing the judge’s reliance on Hill’s testimony.

The Respondent also excepted to the judge’s decision on the basis that it is the product of bias and prejudice. Our review of the entire record in this proceeding reveals no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated either bias toward the Charging Parties or prejudice against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence.

We deny the Respondent’s motion to supplement the record with time records for Charging Parties Hill and Gunter covering a period of several months during 1992. While it appears from the record that these documents were offered into evidence during the hearing, the Respondent neglected either to provide copies to the reporter for inclusion in the record or subsequently to submit them to the judge prior to the issuance of his decision. It would be inappropriate in these circumstances for the Board to consider evidence that was not available to the judge. In any event, these documents pertain to an allegation of the complaint that is not in issue before the Board, i.e., that the Respondent unlawfully reduced the Charging Parties’ hours of work. Inasmuch as the judge dismissed this allegation and neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party has filed exceptions thereto, the matter is moot.