Allen Boat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 751 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ALLEN BOAT COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP , AND C. F.
MCDOUGAL, F. M. HOLLOWAY AND E. N. SPENCE, PARTNERS and
SIDNEY D. BIEBER, INDIVIDUAL
Case No. C-0693.-Decided September 20, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 2, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices,'
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and that they
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report annexed hereto. Thereafter the respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of their
exceptions. The Union has not excepted to the findings and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner. The Board has considered the
rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief filed by the respondents, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the following qualification :
The Trial Examiner has found, as the record indicates, that Bieber,
during the time he worked as a fitter, was in the habit of loafing on
the job. We do not condone such conduct; in the absence of any dis-
criminatory motive on the part of the respondents, it might consti-
tute a valid reason for discharge. In this case, however, we are
convinced and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the real reason
for Bieber's discharge was his participation in the concerted activi-
ties of the employees rather than his practice of loafing. Since such
a discharge constitutes discrimination, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act, we shall order the respondents to offer Bieber re-
instatement with back pay from the date of his discharge, as recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner. In s'o doing, however, we do not
limit the respondents' right to take appropriate disciplinary action
52 N. L. R. B., No. 131.
751
752 DECISIONS OF NArrrOT"AL LABOR ROLAT'ION'S BOARD
in the future to enforce any non-descriminatory standards of conduct
they may require of their employees.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, Allen Boat Company, a
partnership, and C. F. McDougal, F. M. Holloway, and E. N. Spence,
partners, Harvey, Louisiana, and their agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization, of their
employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their em-
ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment or any term or condition of their
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Sidney D. Bieber immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights or privileges;
(b) Make whole Sidney D. Bieber for any loss of pay he has suf-
fered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discrimina-
tory discharge to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their plant at Har-
vey, Louisiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees
stating: (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from
which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and
(b) of this Order; (2) that they will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the
respondents' employees are free to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and that the respondents will not discriminate against-any employee
for engaging in such activity;
ALLEN BOAT COMPANY
1 753
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. RALLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. J. Michael Early, for the Board.
Mr. W. A. West, Jr., of New Orleans, La., for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on June 10, 1943, by Sidney D. Bieber, an individual,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Di-
rector for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued its complaint
dated July 8, 1943, against Allen Boat Company,' herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and,
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the respondent and Bieber.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) during the month of June, 1943, interfered with, in-_
fluenced, and discouraged its employees in their right to self-organization in that-
Superintendent R. Hines inquired as to the activity of its employees in their at--
tempt to organize and in that Hines spied upon the employees during a meeting at
the home of Sidney D. Bieber ; and (2) on or about June 9, 1943, discharged or
terminated the employment of Sidney D. Bieber and since that date has failed and
refused to reemploy him because of his activities in behalf of organizing a labor
organization. The complaint further alleged that the respondent is and has
been a partnership since July 1, 1943, with C. F. McDougal, F. M. Holloway, and,
E. N Spence as partners ; and that the respondent is the successor of Allen Boat
Works Corporation, which was dissolved on June 30, 1943.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New Orleans, Louisiana, on July
19, 1943, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief,
Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by, counsel;
and Sidney D. Bieber appeared on his own behalf. All of the parties partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded'
all parties.
At the start of the hearing, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint
in which it admitted that it has been a partnership since June 30, 1943, on in
formation and belief denied the alleged unfair labor practices, and claimed that
Sidney D. Bieber was discharged for cause; and denied that it had knowledge.
of or is the successor of Allen boat Works Corporation.
At the start of the hearing, the Board moved to amend the complaint as-
to the correct caption of the case. The motion was granted without objection.
Except for changing the title of the case and alleging in more detail the con-_
I The caption was changed by motion of the Board to amend the complaint which will be,
hereinafter discussed.
754 DECTSION'S OF NAPTTONnAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nection between the partnership and Allen Boat Works Corporation, however,
the allegations in the original complaint remained unchanged by the amend-
ment. The respondent answered the amended complaint on the record, denying
that the partnership was the successor of Allen Boat Works Corporation and
maintaining that it had no knowledge of any such corporation.
At the close of its case, the Board moved to amend the amended complaint
by substituting the name Allen Boat Company, Inc., in place and instead of
Allen Boat Works Corporation wherever the latter appeared in the complaint.
The motion was granted over the objection of the respondent. 3
At the close of the Board's case and at the close of the whole case, the re-
spondent moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruling on these motions was re-
served. They are hereinafter disposed of by the findings and 'recommendation
made in this Report. At the close of the case, the Board's counsel moved to
amend the pleadings to conform to the proof as to names and dates. The motion
was granted without objection.
Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally
before the undersigned . Pursuant to permission granted at the hearing, the
respondent and the Board filed briefs with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Allen Boat Company is and has been since June 30, 1943, a partnership
organized under the laws of the State of Texas and having its principal office
and place of business at Harvey, Louisiana, where it operates a plant or ship-
yard. The partnership is composed of C. F. McDougal, F. M. Holloway, and
E. N. Spence. For at least one year prior to June 30, 1943, the above-mentioned
premises were occupied and operated by Allen Boat Company, Inc. The under-
signed finds that the respondent, Allen Boat Company, is the successor to Allen
Boat Company, Inc.' Accordingly, for the purposes of this Report, the partner-
2 The evidence adduced during the Board 's case showed that the correct name of the
corporation operating the plant involved in this case prior to June 30, 1943, was Allen
Boat Company, Inc., rather than Allen Boat Works Corporation as originally alleged In
objecting to the above notion, the respondent claimed that it should be given the privilege
of defending the charge that it is the successor of Allen Boat Company, Inc, in a "separate
proceeding directed against the Allen Boat Company as the successor of Allen Boat Com-
pany, Inc " The undersigned offered to adjourn the hearing for a reasonable period to
allow the respondent time to defend on this issue. The respondent , however, elected to
proceed.
3 C F McDougal, F. M. Holloway, and E. N Spence held the following offices in the
corporation : McDougal, President and Treasurer ; Spence, Vice President and General
Manager ; Holloway, Vice President and Secietary. They were also the sole stockholders in
the corporation. On July 8, 1943, a notice of dissolution of the corporation, dated June
30, 1943, was filed with the Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana The three above
named individuals formed a partnership and on or about June 30 , 1943, commenced doing
business under the name and style of Allen Boat Company As stockholders of the cor-
poration they transferred to the partnership all assets of the corporation, including
unperformed contracts with the United States for barges and towboats Except in some
minor respects , the business of the corporation and the partnership was identical and
there was very little, if any, change in personnel The respondent contended that the
Board had not proved that the paitnership was the successor of the corporation since
McDougal testified that the partnership did not assume the liabilities of the corporation but
merely indem n ified the stockholders " against loss in case of liabilities " The undersigned
does not find any merit in this contention and accordingly rejects it.
ALLEN BOAT COMPANY 755
ship, the corporation, and the partners will hereinafter be referred to collectively
as the respondent.
As a corporation, the respondent was engaged in the business of towing and
building, barges and towboats. The partnership has been engaged in the same.
business with the exception of towing. The respondent in the conduct of its
business uses materials consisting of steel, lumber, iron, brass, copper, rope,
engines, pumps, wrenches, electrical fittings, piping, and refrigerators, with a
value annually exceeding $400,000. In excess of 90 percent of said materials
are transported to the respondent's plant from points outside the State of
Louisiana. The value of the respondent's finished products annually exceeds
$1,000,000 and during the year 1943, in excess of 95 percent of the finished prod-
ucts has been sold and delivered in interstate commerce to and through States
of the United States other than Louisiana.
In June of 1943, the respondent employed approximately 130 persons, including
office workers.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
About 2 weeks prior to June S, 1943, it appears that the respondent's employees
began talking to one another concerning the holding of a meeting in order to
consider possible concerted action in connection with grievances against the
respondent. The record is silent as to which employees were the leaders in
this movement but the date and place was in some manner decided upon and a
meeting was held on June 8, 1943, starting at about 5: 45 p. in. on the front
porch of the home of Sidney D. Bieber. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes and
about 15 employees were present. At this meeting the employees discussed
unsatisfactory conditions at the plant and the possible formation of a com-
mittee to take up these grievances with the respondent. The employees also
discussed the possibility of union organization if the proposed committee should
fail in its purpose.
During the course of this meeting, R# Hines,Hines, superintendent at the respond-
ent's plant, drove by Bieber's house in his automobile and stopped at a restaurant
about 150 feet distant from the house. He got out of his car, glanced over at
Bieber's house, and then entered the restaurant. Another person accompanied
Hines. A few minutes later Hines left the restaurant, again glanced in the
direction of Bieber's house before entering his automobile, and then drove away.'
Other than the fact that Hines passed by while the meeting was in progress,
the record does not in any way show that Hines had advance knowledge of the
meeting on June 8. The Board's witnesses all testified that Hines merely
* These facts were testified to by Bieber and three other witnesses for the Board. The
undersigned credits their testimony in this respect. Bieber further testified that Hines
passed his house and stopped at the same restaurant almost every day. Hines testified
that he was first employed by the respondent on April 26, 1943; that he passed Bieber's
house on June 8 but did not know NN here Bieber lived at that time ; and that he often stopped
at the restaurant in question but did not so stop on June 8. Charles Wood, an employee
of the respondent, testified that he rode home with Hines every day, including June 8 ;
and that they often stopped at the restaurant but did not stop there on June 8. Although
Hines land Wood were both positive in their testimony with respect to June 8, it is possible
that they have confused the date, especially since it was their custom to stop at this
restaurant on the way from work. The undersigned finds that they passed Bieber's house
and stopped at the restaurant on June 8 as testified by Bieber and other Board witnesses
who were present at the meeting on Bieber's front porch.
549875-44-vol. 52--4 9
756 DECISION'S OF IV"'Afrr0T AL LABOR RELAT'LONiS BOARD
"glanced" in the direction of Bieber's house and there is no proof in the record
that Hines at the time knew that the house belonged to Bieber or that he
recognized the persons at the meeting as employees of the respondent. In this
connection, it is to be noted that the restaurant was about 150 feet from Bieber's
house and that Hines had been employed by the respondent for only a little
over a month prior to June S. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the
respondent, through Hines, did not engage in surveillance of the meeting of
employees at the home of Bieber on June 8, 1943. There is no evidence in the
record that the respondent, through Hines, inquired as to the activities of its
employees in their attempts to organize, as alleged in the complaint. Therefore,
the undersigned finds that the respondent did not interfere with, restrain,
or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
B. The Discharge of Sidney D. Bieber
Bieber was first employed by the respondent about January, 1942, and,
except for a lay-off due to lack of work during the early part of 1943, was
continuously employed by the respondent until discharged on June 9, 1943.
About 2 or 3 weeks prior to June 9, 1943, Bieber asked Superintendent Hines
for a raise in wages. At that time Bieber operated a "burning machine" in
the "union melt shed." Hines told Bieber that he would not pay more.` money
for the type of work being performed by Bieber in the melt shed. Hines then
transferred Bieber to construction work on the barges as a fitter, but Bieber
did not receive an increase in wages.5
On or shortly before June 4, 1943, Hines sent for Bieber and warned him
about loafing on the job.' As stated above, about 15 employees met at Bieber's
home on the night of June 8, and during the meeting Hines drove by Bieber's
home in his automobile and stopped at a restaurant about 150 feet distant.
Bieber worked a full day on June 9 and at the end of the day Hines sent for
him.'` Bieber went to the office and Hines told him that he was discharged for
not "putting out the work" and also because he (Bieber) was organizing or
trying to organize a "list" being circulated around the "yard." 8
5 Hines testified that he transferred Bieber for the reason that ". . . they (other em-
ployees) considered him to be a good fitter and I wanted to bring him to the top."
9 Both Hines and Bieber testified concerning this warning. Hines testified that he
believed he spoke to Bieber on June 1 and Bieber testified that the conversation took place
on June 4. With respect to this conversation, Bieber testified : "He said he didn't think
I was working enough, and I said I thought I did a good enough day's work and he told
me to come back in the next few days and do better" The evidence shows that Bieber
was not laid off at that time. Both Hines and Raymond Thompson, Bieber's foreman
during June of 1943, testified that Bieber after being transferred as a fitter often was away
from his job, talking to other employees and loafing. Hines also tesified that he called
Bieber's loafing to Thompson's attention several times and Thompson confirmed this in
his testimony
° Bieber testified that on June 9 Mines stayed in close proximity to where he (Bieber) was
working throughout the day and that this had not happened before.
8 Bieber testified that Hines gave the first above reason for the discharge, that he
(Bieber) claimed he was discharged for some other reason, and that Hines then told him
that he was being discharged because of the "list " Hines denied that he made the state-
ment concerning the "list" and, in fact, Bieber testified that a "list" was not being circu-
lated. The undersigned believes that Bieber is the more credible witness as to this
conversation. That Hines was concerned about a "list" is shown by the respondent's
answer wherein in paragraph numbered V the following appears:
. . . but respondent shows that it is informed by R Hines that the only inquiry he
can recall was as to the nature of a paper being circulated during working hours, the
ALLEN BOAT COMPANY 757
Because of Bieber's discharge, all but a few of the respondent's employees
did not report or work on June 10, 1943. A committee of employees, including
Bieber, called on Hines and other ofFifials of respondent and requested that
Bieber be reinstated in his job. The request was refused.
CONCLUSIONS
In the undersigned's opinion the evidence clearly establishes the fact that
Bieber, during the time that he worked as a fitter,'was in the habit of leaving
his job, talking and loafing to a greater extent than practiced by other em-
ployees. In this connection it is to be noted that the Board did not call any
witnesses to rebut the respondent's case. Nevertheless, the undersigned believes
and finds that the respondent was motivated in discharging Bieber by reason
of his efforts for or in connection with the concerted activities of the employees.
The employees were attempting to and did engage in concerted activities
for at least 2 weeks prior to June 9, culminating in a meeting at Bieber's house
on the night of June 8. On the next day Bieber was discharged by Hines who
told Bieber that the reason or one of the reasons for the discharge was that
he (Hines) had heard that Bieber was attempting to organize and circulate
a "list for all the employees to sign."' The undersigned's above finding that
Hines did not engage in surveillance of the meeting of employees on June 8
is not conclusive that Hines did not know on June 9 and prior to the dis-
charge that a meeting of employees had been held at Bieber's house. In
fact, the sequence of events indicates otherwise, especially in view of Hines'
statements to Bieber about "organizing" a "list." Since the evidence in the
case shows that there was no list circulated and that the only concerted action
on the part of employees was the meeting on June 8. it is a reasonable inference
that Hines in his statements concerning a "list" was referring to this meeting
and the concerted activities of employees in which Bieber was a leader.
It is found that the respondent was motivated in discharging Bieber and there-
after refused to reinstate him because of his leadership in the employees' con-
certed activities on June 8. By discharging Bieber for that reason the respondent
has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (1) of
the Act.9 The undersigned further finds that by discharging Bieber for that
reason the respondent has discouraged concerted activity for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining which has the effect of discouraging the formation of and
membership in a labor organization which is the customary instrumentality
utilized by employees to achieve collective bargaining, and therefore consti-
tutes an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 10
M. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section II above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
reply being so vague he did not know and does not now know whether it had anything
to do with organization of employees, . . .
E. N. Spence, Jr., general superintendent of the respondent, was present during the greater
part of the conversation between Hines and Bieber and was called as a witness by the
respondent. Spence testified concerning his version of the conversation, omitting, however,'
to mention the "list" referred to in Bieber's testimony.
N Mutter of M. F. A. Milling Company, etc., 26 N. L. R. B. 614; Matter of Indianapolis
Glove Company, etc., 5 N. L. R. B. 231, 238
30 Matter of Stehli and Co., Inc., 11 N. L. R. B., 1397, 1451 ; see also, Matter of ,General
Shale Products Corporation, etc, 26 N. L. R. B 921, 928-9.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to
reinstate Sidney D. Bieber because he engaged in concerted activities within
the meaning of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent
offer Bieber immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privi-
leges he may have, and to dismiss, if necessary; any employee who has been
hired to fill the position previously held by him. The undersigned will further
recommend that the respondent make Bieber whole for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum equal to the
amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the
discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said period."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sidney
D. Bieber because he engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby discouraging the forma-
tion of or membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) of the Act ;
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices,, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act ;
3. The, aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning, of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Allen Boat Company, a Partner-
ship and C. F. McDougal, F. M. Holloway and E. N. Spence, Partners, and their
officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from:,
(a) Discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its employees because of their
11 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondents , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joinem o f America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. It. B. 440. Monies received for
work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects shall
be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation V. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
ALLEN BOAT COMPANY 759
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, thereby discouraging the formation of or membership in a,
labor organization ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, loin, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Sidney D. Bieber immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges and, if necessary, dismiss any employee who has been
hired to fill the.position previously occupied by said employee ;
(b) Make whole Sidney D. Bieber for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he would
normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of
the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period 12
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in and about its plant at Harvey,
Louisiana and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respond-
ent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease
and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) hereof; (2) that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) hereof; and
(3) that the respondent's employees are free to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection and
that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee for engaging
in such activity ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent h ,-,s taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notify said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective ' October 28,
1942-any party may within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days after the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
JOHN H. EADIE,
Dated August 2, 1943. Trial Examiner.
12 See footnote 11, supra.