Opinion ID: 397163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waugaman's discharge

Text: 17 The Company threatened to discharge Thomas Waugaman. Justak (the owner) told him, You may get a union in here but you will not be here. Kritch told Clousing that Waugaman was on his way out. On June 29, the day before Waugaman's alleged misconduct that was the ostensible basis for his discharge, Kritch told Waugaman that he would try to get him for work related infractions. 18 On June 30, the Company asserts that Waugaman failed to respond when paged. The credited testimony shows, however, that: (1) Waugaman was called in and worked most of Saturday; (2) he was told he could leave by the job site supervisor; (3) the supervisor said that he would telephone the Company and have Waugaman paged if he was needed further; and (4) Waugaman was not paged that day to return to the job site. 19 The Company relies on discredited testimony without showing exceptional circumstances that warrant overturning the Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolutions. See NLRB v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659-60, 69 S.Ct. 1283, 1285-86, 93 L.Ed. 1602 (1949); Electri-Flex Co. v. NLRB, 570 F.2d 1327, 1331-32 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 280, 58 L.Ed.2d 256. For example, the Company claims that Waugaman lied to the job site supervisor on June 30 by telling him that his shift had ended. The Company, however, never called the supervisor as a witness to rebut Waugaman's uncontradicted testimony that the supervisor told Waugaman he could leave. Cf. International Union, UAW v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-39 (D.C.Cir.1972). 20 The Board's finding that Waugaman was discharged for anti-union reasons had substantial support in the record.