Adhesive Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 641
for the Nineteenth Region in writing whether or not they accept the
Board's determination of this dispute and whether or not they will
refrain from forcing or requiring General Ore, Inc., by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dis-
pute to longshoremen who are members of, or represented by, the
above mentioned labor organizations, or either of them, rather than
to employees of General Ore, Inc.
Adhesive Products Corporation and District 65, Retail , Whole-
sale & Department Store Union , AFL-CIO' and Adco Em-
ployees Association 2 and Steel , Metals, Alloys and Hardware,
Fabricators and Warehousemen , Local 810, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America,' Parties to the Contract . Case No. 2-CA-
4188. August 20, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 4, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Order in
this case,4 finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain
with District 65; had violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2) by interfer-
ing with the formation of Adco and contributing financial and other
support to it; had violated Sections 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) by its con-
duct toward Teamsters Local 810; and had violated Section 8(a) (1)
by stating, in the presence of its employees, that it would not bargain
with District 65, their majority representative, and by promising its
employees benefits if they would bargain through Adco. The Board
accordingly ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from the un-
fair labor practices found, and to take certain affirmative action, in-
cluding the refunding of dues checked off for Adco and Teamsters
Local 810.
On July 3, 1958, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit entered its decision 5 denying the Board's petition for enforce-
ment pending further consideration of the case by the Board, as
directed.
In its opinion, the court held that there was "'substantial evidence
on the record considered as a whole' to support the Charges and the
1 Herein referred to as District 65.
2 Herein referred to as Adco.
S Herein referred to as Teamsters Local 810. The Board having been notified by AFL-
CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certificate of affiliation revoked by convention action,
the identification of this Union is hereby amended.
a 117 NLRB 265.
5 258 F. 2d 403.
124 NLRB No. 81.
525543-60-vol. 124--42
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order, except for the direction to pay back the dues checked off for
Adco, but the case turns on certain issues of veracity between Maury
T. Medwick, Adhesive's president, and the union organizer for District
65, Morris Doswell and Phillip Vicinanza." In this connection, the
court held, further, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, the Trial Examiner had
erroneously refused to compel Doswell to produce his pretrial state-
ment, which he had in his pocket while testifying to matters con-
tained therein, so that Respondent's counsel could use it for purposes
of cross-examination. Remanding the case for production of Dos-
well's pretrial statement for purposes of cross-examination of Doswell,
to test his memory and credibility, and for further examination of
Vicinanza if the Respondent wished to obtain his pretrial statement
through the proper procedure, the court ordered a reconsideration
of the issues by the Board, in the light of further testimony by Dos-
well and Vicinanza, and any other witnesses the Board or the Trial
Examiner might wish to hear. The court denied enforcement of that
portion of the Board's order requiring the Respondent to reimburse
its employees for dues checked off for Adco.
On September 10, 1958, the Board issued an order in which it
-reopened the record, remanded the case to the Regional Director for
further hearing consistent with the remand of the court, and directed
the Trial Examiner, upon conclusion of the supplementary hearing,
to prepare and serve upon the parties a Supplemental Intermediate
Report containing findings of fact upon the evidence received, con-
clusions of law, and recommendations.
Pursuant to notice, a supplementary hearing was held on January
12, 1959, before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson, who was the
Trial Examiner at the original hearing. The pretrial statements of
both Doswell and Vicinanza were presented, and both appeared as
witnesses and were examined and cross-examined.
On March 13, 1959, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental
Intermediate Report, copy of which is attached hereto, in which he
credited Doswell and discredited Medwick and Vicinanza. The Trial
Examiner recommended that all findings in the Intermediate Report
and the Decision and Order based on Doswell's testimony be affirmed
and retained, but that findings based upon Vicinanza's denied or
uncorroborated testimony be eliminated, and that the Decision and
Order be reaffirmed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the reopened hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was coin-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has recon-
sidered the entire record in this case, including the Supplemental
ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 643
Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the brief, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
1. In its exceptions, the Respondent contends that the credibility
findings of the Trial Examiner as to Doswell and Medwick, set forth
in the Supplemental Intermediate Report, are erroneous and should
be overruled. However, we find that a clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence does not demonstrate that the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings are incorrect, and we therefore adopt them.'
2. Based on our review of the entire record and the credibility find-
ings, which we have adopted, we find, in agreement with the recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, and with our original Decision
and Order and for the reasons set forth therein; that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act.'
REMEDY
Having reaffirmed our findings that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act, in substantial conformity with the order previ-
ously issued herein. However, we shall omit that portion of our
previous order requiring the Respondent to reimburse the employees
for the dues checked off for Adco, in view of the court's denial of
enforcement thereof.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National
Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Adhesive Prod-
ucts Corporation, New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, assisting, or contributing financial or other
support to Adco Employees Association, or to Steel, Metals, Alloys
and Hardware, Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America.
(b) Recognizing the above-named labor organizations as the repre-
sentatives of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
0 Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 1 '. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). Our
adoption of the Trial Examiner ' s credibility findings is not to be construed as approving
the Trial Examiner 's characterization of one of the witnesses by his race . Nor do we
adopt the remarks of the Trial Examiner, in the Supplemental Intermediate Report, re-
garding the credibility of union organizers in general.
'In view of the credibility finding of the Trial Examiner , which we have . adopted,
discrediting Phillip Vicinanza, we do not, in reaffirming our finding that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1), rely on the unsupported and controverted testimony of
Vicinanza that Aledwick told the employees at his meeting with them that they could
have any union they wanted except District 65, which was a Communist union.
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment until after it
has complied with the provisions of this Order requiring it to bargain
with District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-
CIO, and unless and until said labor organizations shall have demon-
strated their exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a.
Board-conducted election among the Respondent's employees.
(c) Giving any force or effect to any agreement, supplement, or
renewal thereof which the Respondent may claim to have with either
Adco Employees Association or Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware,
Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
and particularly those agreements executed by the Respondent with
the aforenamed labor organizations, respectively, on February 3, 1955,
and February 9 or August 15,1955.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with District 65, Retail,
Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representatives of its production and maintenance employ-
ees including truckdrivers, employed at its Bronx, New York, plant
but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employ-
ees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist District 65, Retail, tiWThole-
sale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Adco Employees
Association and Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware, Fabricators and
Warehousemen, Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as representatives
.of any of the Respondent's employees in its Bronx, New York, plant
for the purpose of contracting or negotiating or otherwise dealing
with the Respondent with respect to wages, rates of pay, or any other
term or condition of employment both until it has complied with the
provisions of this Order requiring it to bargain with District 6'5,
Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and there-
after, unless and until said labor organizations shall have demon-
ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 645
strated their exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with District 65, Retail,
-Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit herein found.
(c) Reimburse each of Respondent's employees in a sum of money
•equal to that which Respondent has checked off from said employee's
:salary as dues to Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware, Fabricators and
Warehousemen, Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.
(d) Post in its Bronx plant in New York, copies of the notice
:attached hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by the Re-
spondent in the Bronx plant immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act other
than as found herein.
8In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, ;there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interfere with, assist, or contribute financial or
other support to Adco Employees Association or to Steel, Metals,
Alloys and Hardware, Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America.
WE WILL NOT recognize the above-named labor organizations as
the representatives of any of our employees for the purpose of
contracting, negotiating, or otherwise dealing with them with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employment, or other conditions of employment until after we
have bargained with District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, and will not thereafter recognize said
organizations as such representatives unless and until they shall
have demonstrated their exclusive majority representative status
pursuant in a Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to any agreement we
may now have with Adco Employees Association or Steel, Metals,.
Alloys and Hardware, Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local
810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with District 65,,
Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit at our Bronx plant with respect to rates of pay,,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed agree-
ment. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees including
truckdrivers employed at our Bronx, New York, New York,.
plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11 j^
of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse each of our employees in a suin of money
equal to that which we have checked off said employee's wages as,
dues and paid over to Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware, Fabri-
cators and Warehousemen, Local 810, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist District 65,
Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any any or all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization except to
the.extent that this right may be affected by an agreement conform-
ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 647
ing to the applicable provisions of Section 8(a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or
tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment,
against any employee because of membership in or activities on behalf
of any such labor organization.
ADIESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated-- -------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT
On February 4, 1957, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision
and Order in the above-entitled case affirming in large measure the findings, con-
clusions of law, and recommendations made by this Trial Examiner in his Inter-
mediate Report in this matter dated April 17, 1956.1
Under date of July 3, 1958, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit speaking through Judge Medina ruled: "The [Board's] petition for enforce-
ment is denied pending further consideration of the case as directed in this opin-
ion." 2 The direction referred to therein was: "[W]e have concluded that there
must be a reconsideration of the issues by the Board, in the light of further testimony
by Doswell and Vicinanza, and any other witnesses the Board or the Trial Examiner
may wish to hear." This conclusion of the court was based upon its statement
that: "We think it was clearly prejudicial error for the trial examiner to refuse to
compel Doswell [the union organizer] to take out the statement he said he had in
his pocket when interrogated on the subject, and to permit counsel to see it at once
and use its contents for the purpose of impeaching Doswell." In addition the court
suggested that, while the Trial Examiner was technically correct in refusing to
order the production of the affidavit of the General Counsel's witness, Vicinanza, to
the Respondent, the Board no doubt would permit such production at the rehearing
required by the court decision.
On September 10, 1958, acting pursuant to said remand, the Board issued an
order stating in pertinent part:
It is hereby ordered that the record in this proceeding be, and it hereby is,
reopened and that a further hearing be held before a trial examiner consistent
with the remand of the court; and
It is further ordered that, upon conclusion of such supplemental hearing, the
trial examiner shall prepare and serve upon the parties a supplemental inter-
mediate report containing findings of fact upon the evidence received pursuant
to the provisions of the order, conclusions of law, and recommendations; and
that following the service of such supplemental intermediate report upon the
parties, the provisions of Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
shall be applicable.
Pursuant to this order a supplemental hearing was held in New York City, New
York, on January 12, 1959, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. At this
hearing Respondent Adhesive, District 65, and the General Counsel were repre-
sented by counsel. The General Counsel produced the witnesses Phillip Vicinanza
and Morris A. Doswell, the witnesses referred to in the court's Opinion, together
with their statements or affidavits which were given to the Respondent.3 The
Respondent then proceeded to cross-examine said witnesses at length. At the con-
1117 NLRB 265.
z 258 F. 2d 403.
It was stipulated that copies of said affidavits had been furnished to an associate of
the Respondent's attorney on October 2, 1958.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elusion of such cross-examination, the Respondent offered Irving Mintz, its secretary-
treasurer, as a "rebuttal witness." At the conclusion of said hearing the parties
waived oral argument and were advised of their right to file briefs and conclusions
and recommendations. On February 27 a brief was received from the Respondent
Adhesive.
Upon the entire record in this case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
Supplemental Findings
1. Credibility
The court's Opinion indicates that it considers this to be a case based on credibility.
The following theme recurs throughout the court's Opinion:
but the case turns on certain issues of veracity between Maury T.
Medwick, Adhesive's president, and the union organizer for District 65, Morris
Doswell and Phillip Vicinanza, a type of professional union organizer . . . .
and
Accordingly, in the last analysis, the case against Adhesive rested on the
testimony of Doswell, as support by Vicinanza, and the credibility of these two
witnesses was a vital issue at the hearing.
With all due deference to the court, this Trial Examiner at the time of writing
the Intermediate Report herein considered it unnecessary to make any credibility
findings regarding the three witnesses mentioned in the court's decision because every
finding made in said Intermediate Report was based either upon undenied testimony,
upon admissions made by the Respondent corroborating Doswell's testimony,4 or
upon testimony given by the eight Adco officers and members called as witnesses
by the General Counsel, although they were so obviously unfriendly as to fully
justify the court's own description of them as:
In addition it is apparent from the transcript of the hearing that they [these
eight witnesses] attempted, whenever possible. to support their employer's posi-
tion, and, in so doing, often had to contradict sworn statements given to an
NLRB investigator.
The only finding made by this Trial Examiner based upon Vicinanza's testimony
was in regard to a conversation he allegedly had with Medwick which the Trial
Examiner accepted because he considered the testimony undenied.5
In view of this restriction to findings made on undenied, corroborated testimony
or admissions, this Trial Examiner could not consider that the credibility of Doswell,
of Vicinanza, or of Medwick were an issue herein.
However, it is true that in its Decision and Order the Board did make a few
unimportant, subsidiary findings which were based upon the testimony of Doswell
and Vicinanza and, in addition, appeared to consider that this Trial Examiner had
accepted the testimony of Vicinanza over the denial of Medwick.
Consequently, in view of the statements made in the court's Opinion, the Trial
Examiner will now for the first time set forth his opinion as to the credibility of the
three witnesses specifically referred to by the court as modified by the resumption
of the cross-examination of Doswell and Vicinanza by the Respondent after receipt
of the statements or affidavits of said witnesses.
a. Phillip Vicinanza
The rather lengthy cross-examination of this witness produced nothing new or
different from the original cross-examination except for the fact that Vicinanza
4 See the following footnotes of said Intermediate Report which read :
17 As the evidence is in dispute on the matter, the Trial Examiner is not including
in this enumeration the meeting between Doswell and Medwick in Medwick's office
on January 1.9.
18 The Trial Examiner is not including in this enumeration the claim that Mintz
verified the majority status of District 65 from the signed cards in the presence of
both Medwick and Doswell on January 19 for the reason that that testimony is also
disputed. The Trial Examiner has already expressed himself on this conflict of
testimony.
5 See footnote 10 of the Intermediate Report.
ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 649
could not recall whether he had given the General Counsel one or more affidavits
prior to the original hearing.6 Vicinanza was as vague and uncertain as he had
been at the original hearing.
The court described Vicinanza as "a type of professional union organizer," a
phrase frequently employed by the Respondent's counsel. However, the testimony
remains undenied, as it did prior to the supplemental hearing, that Vicinanza was
never employed, paid, or even approached by District 65 to help it in organizing
the Respondent's employees and that whatever Vicinanza did to encourage the
organization of the Respondent's employees into an outside labor organization was
done solely in his capacity as one such employee and without suggestion, encourage-
ment , employment, or pay by District 65.
Obviously from the history of his prior connection with three different unions
other than District 65 prior to his employment by Respondent Adhesive, Vicinanza
can only be described as "a type of professional union organizer." This, of course,
was well known from Vicinanza's original testimony.
This Trial Examiner knows of no rule of law or reason which makes testimony
given by an individual correctly described as "a type of professional union organizer"
per se unworthy of credit. This Trial Examiner would be less than candid if he
did not admit that his own personal experience with a number of organizers as
witnesses in the early days of the Wagner Act caused him at that time to view
such testimony with considerable distrust. More recent experience, though, has
proved that union organizers as a group are today no better and, certainly, no worse
than any other individual witness.
As to Vicinanza, the subsequent cross-examination served only to confirm the
original opinion of this witness held by this Trial Examiner. As a witness on both
occasions Vicinanza was so vague, uncertain, and so evasive that the Trial Examiner
could only credit his testimony when undenied or corroborated.
The Trial Examiner will, therefore, recommend that the Board eliminate any and
all findings made by it upon testimony given by Vicinanza which was either denied
or uncorroborated.
b. Morris A. Doswell
As was the case with Vicinanza, the supplemental cross-examination of Morris A.
Doswell added nothing new to his original cross-examination by the Respondent.
The only possible new material added was Doswell's candid admission at the sup-
plemental hearing that at the original hearing he had in fact been reaching into
his vest pocket for a copy of his affidavit and not for the "diary" or "wallet" as
he had then testified. As a matter of fact this candid admission by Doswell at the
supplemental cross-examination served only to confirm what the Trial Examiner
actually knew at the original hearing when he saw Doswell's fingers holding a
folded piece of paper in his vest pocket which the Trial Examiner was certain
could be neither a "diary" nor a "wallet." Therefore, the Trial Examiner knew
even before writing his Intermediate Report that Doswell had not been telling the
truth about that event at the original hearing.
Doswell, as was also true in the case of Vicinanza, can be truthfully described
as "a type of professional union organizer." However, unlike Vicinanza, Doswell
is one of those more recent organizer witnesses who has succeeded in eradicating
this Trial Examiner's early distrust of organizers as a group as witnesses as men-
tioned heretofore. Doswell personally is a fine-looking, clean-cut appearing, self-
respecting Negro who looks one straight in the eye on and off the witness stand
and who answers questions carefully, thoughtfully, and, in the considered opinion
of this Trial Examiner, truthfully and honestly without evasion or quibbling.
Furthermore, although from personal experience the Trial Examiner is not a
great believer in the so-called "demeanor" evaluation of a witness as a general rule,
it is true that, even without having seen the folded paper Doswell had hold of during
the original hearing, the Trial Examiner would have known that the testimony about
the "diary" and the "wallet" was untrue because, for the only time during the entire
hearing, Doswell was uncertain, flustered, and visibly upset while giving that testi-
mony. Many witnesses can vary from the truth without any such visual indication.
This was not true of Doswell . In his case his demeanor on the stand at both the
original and the supplemental hearing was such as to lead this Trial Examiner to
believe, except for the diary and wallet incident, that Doswell was telling the truth
and nothing but the truth.
The General Counsel was able to locate only one such affidavit.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is also true that Doswell testified that he met with Medwick on January 18 and
that subsequently that same day he wrote Medwick a letter requesting recognition
and bargaining. As noted in the Intermediate Report,7 as well as in the findings of
the Board, the Trial Examiner was convinced that Doswell was mistaken as to the
day of the month on which that meeting occurred. This is a type of honest mistake
which the most honest of witnesses can make. Doswell was sincere in his belief that
the date he had testified to was correct for he refused to change is testimony even
when events was called to his attention which made it illogical that the meeting oc-
curred on January 18. Actually the date of that meeting was of little or no
significance.
Most important, however, is the fact that the testimony of Doswell conformed to,
fitted in with, and was logical with, a coterie of facts admitted by all parties and
firmly established in the evidence.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the testimony of Maury T. Medwick
who, as a witness, was forgetful, evasive, and shifty, and whose memory was
strangely dependent upon the force of circumstances and the necessities of the defense.
Medwick had no hesitancy in repudiating affidavits prepared by himself and his
attorney.
As heretofore indicated in the Intermediate Report, the original opinion held by
the Trial Examiner was that in conflicts between the testimony of Dowsell and that
of Medwick, the testimony of Doswell was the more reliable. This opinion was only
further confirmed by the supplemental cross-examination. It is also of passing inter-
est that the only question relating to the contents of Doswell's affidavit asked by Re-
spondent during the supplemental cross-examination of Doswell concerned the fact
that Doswell had not mentioned Vicinanza's past connections with other unions
therein. Nor did Respondents offer said affidavit in evidence as impeachment of
Doswell.
The Trial Examiner is convinced that, except for the two incidents mentioned at
length above, Doswell was an honest, straightforward witness whose testimony is en-
titled to full credence.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner will recommend that no changes be made in any
finding of fact based upon the testimony of Morris A. Doswell in this case.
2. The "rebuttal" witness: Irving Mintz
After the completion of his cross-examination of Vicinanza and Doswell, Re-
spondent's counsel offered Respondent's secretary-treasurer, Irving Mintz, as a "re-
buttal witness" allegedly because of an inference which the Trial Examiner drew
from the failure of the Respondent at the original hearing to call said Mintz to testify
about a meeting between Doswell, Medwick, and Mintz which Doswell mistakenly
placed as occurring on January 18 but which was found to have occurred January 19
or thereafter.8
Upon the admission of counsel for the Respondent that the proposed testimony of
said Mintz was neither newly discovered nor unavailable at the original hearing, the
Trial Examiner, sustained an objection to this so-called rebuttal testimony but per-
mitted an offer of proof in question-and-answer form to be made. It is of interest
to note that every question asked except one in this offer of proof was definitely
limited to the date of January 18.
4. Conclusions
1. That the witness Morris A. Doswell was an honest witness whose testimony is
worthy of credit.
2. That the truth of the testimony given by the witness Vicinanza which was either
denied or remained uncorroborated is of highly doubtful quality.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
' See footnote 7 of the Intermediate Report.
s Although indicating his belief that this meeting had occurred as testified to by Doswell,
albeit; on a subsequent date, the Trial Examiner specifically did not rely upon this incident
because its occurrence I had been denied by'"Medwick. As this would have created a
credibility conflict, the Trial Examiner made no use of the incident in his Intermediate
Report but relied upon other events admitted by the Respondent.