Allen-Bradley Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Allen-Bradley Company and United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America , Local 1111
(UE). Case 30-CA-1105
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
On March 10, 1970, Trial Examiner John P. von
Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, but only to the extent
consistent herewith.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that
the evidence supports the Trial Examiner's conclusion
that Respondent's suspension of James Dimond was
"motivated in substantial part" by its displeasure
with Dimond's "zealous" activities as a union steward.
The record shows that on the morning of Friday,
September 18, 1969, Dimond went into one of the
electrician's rooms shortly after starting time, and
while there, upon the arrival of Acting Supervisor
Drezdon, accosted Drezdon and accused and berated
him for turning in three employees who apparently
had continued playing cards for several minutes after
the bell had rung ending the lunch hour. The incident
was, at the least, a direct affront to a supervisor,
who, on the record before us, had performed his
duties as required by his employer. Dimond, although
a union steward at the time, was not acting as such
at the time. The several electrician-employees in the
room at the time were not within Dimond's steward-
ship, he was not representing them, and there is
no showing that he was in any way acting as steward
for those employees who had been reported by Drez-
don. In short, Dimond had gone out of his way
to engage in a confrontation with a supervisor and
to rebuke him for performing his duties. In our
opinion, Dimond's conduct was, as the Trial Examiner
found it, "gross misconduct."
We realize that Dimond, as steward, had created
a supervisory substitution situation several weeks earli-
er, that this situation caused the Respondent a consid-
erable amount of scheduling problems, and that Hut-
ton, Respondent's personnel manager, immediately
after suspending Dimond, referred to this incident
and called Dimond a big labor boss, a big man
on campus. However, we do not feel that these remarks
alone, in the face of Dimond's insubordinate conduct,
will support a finding that his suspension was motivat-
ed by his activities and status as a union steward.
In addition, the record shows that several weeks
had passed since the supervisory substitution issue
without any incidents relating to Dimond, and more
importantly, on the very day Dimond was suspended,
Hutton told acting Chief Steward Smith that all
Dimond had to do to return to work was to apologize
to Drezdon and give assurance that he would conduct
himself in a businesslike adult manner at all times.
That condition, we are persuaded, related to the
Drezdon incident. In these circumstances, we are
unable to conclude, as urged by the General Counsel,
that Dimond's activities relating to his stewardship
was a substantially motivating consideration leading
to his suspension on September 18, 1969. Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER BROWN, concurring:
While I agree with my colleagues that the complaint
herein should be dismissed, I would do so for the
following reasons.
For 32 years the Union, which represents a unit
of 5,500 employees, has had an harmonious bargaining
relationship with the Respondent, during which the
employees have been covered by collective-bargaining
agreements. When Dimond was suspended on Septem-
ber 18, the contract's grievance procedure was immedi-
ately invoked. Grievance meetings were held between
September 19 and 22 and Dimond was reinstated
on September 23. Further meetings were held to
hear Dimond's claim for backpay for the period of
his suspension. Upon the denial of this claim, arbitra-
185 NLRB No. 66
ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY
tion was available to Dimond, but it was not sought.
Instead, these charges were filed.
Unlike my colleagues, I would not now reach the
merits of this case in this proceeding. The parties
devised a procedure for resolving matters such as
this one and I would require them to abide by their
own procedure. Once again I find it necessary to
express the view that, in cases like this, the policy
of promoting industrial peace and stability through
collective bargaining obliges the Board to defer to
grievance-arbitration procedures which the parties
themselves have established.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
and an amended charge filed on September 30 and October
2, 1969, respectively, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region
30 (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued a complaint on November
4, 1969, against Allen-Bradley Company, herein called the
Respondent or the Company, alleging that it had suspended
employee James Dimond in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act The Respondent's answer denies
the allegation of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before me on
December 15, 1969, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. All parties
were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity
to adduce evidence , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and from the Respondent and they have been
carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Allen-Bradley Company is a Wisconsin corporation with
its principal office and place of business located in Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of machinery and electrical products. During the year pre-
ceding the hearing herein, Respondent sold and shipped
goods manufactured at its Milwaukee , plant valued in excess
of $50,000 to points and places outside of the State of
Wisconsin During the same period it received raw materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it from
points and places outside the State of Wisconsin
Respondent concedes , and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
357
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America, Local 1111 (UE) is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Employee James Dimond was suspended from his job
on Friday, September 18, 1969.' He was reinstated on
Tuesday, September 23. The sole issue in this case is whether
Dimond was suspended for cause or whether this action
was substantially prompted by his activities as a union
steward
With certain minor exceptions , herein noted , the facts
in this case are not in material dispute.
A. Dimond's Activities as a Union Steward
James A Dimond has been employed with Respondent
as an electrical technician in Department 452 for 41/2 years
For about 6 months prior to his suspension on September
18, Dimond acted as steward for the approximate 50
electricians in his department.
The basis for the General Counsel 's case principally
arises out of Dimond 's role in processing a grievance with
respect to Respondent's practice of appointing rank-and-
file employees to the status of acting supervisors on those
occasions when the regular supervisors went on vacation
or took time off and did not come in for work This
issue arose on a day early in June when Dimond and
Robert Gaulke , the chief steward , met with Ted Hutton,
the personnel manager , and asked that he discuss a pay
increase for employees for the time spent when they thus
filled in as acting supervisors . According to the unrefuted
testimony of Dimond , Hutton at this time refused to discuss
the matter , stating "that it was not in the bargaining
unit so, therefore , he didn 't have to talk about it " Shortly
thereafter Dimond met with the electricians at the union
hall and informed them that Hutton had refused to discuss
any pay increase for acting supervision . Dimond testified
that these employees thereupon took a vote and decided
that they would not accept the acting supervisory jobs
until the Company indicated a willingness to negotiate
a pay increase for these positions.
Apparently on the day following the above meeting one
of the electricians refused to fill in as acting supervisor,
because on this date the assistant foreman of the electrician's
department , William Byer , came up to Dimond and asked
"if there was anything he could do to get the electricians
to take acting supervision ."' After a brief discussion , Dimond
told Byer that he did not think Byer had authority to
speak for the Company and that he would not discuss
the matter any further unless it was with someone vested
with such authority.
Thereafter , and apparently continuing to the date of
the hearing herein , the employees have engaged in a persis-
All dates herein refer to the year 1969
' Unrefuted testimony of Dimond
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tent refusal to take the position of acting supervisor.
Dimond's uncontroverted testimony reflects further that
this practice spread from the electrician's department to
all other departments in the plant.'
In the early part of August, Earl Richardson, the manager
of Respondent's electrical maintenance department, met
with Dimond and eight other electricians Present also
in Richardson's office where this meeting took place were
Supervisors Kenneth Byer and Kenneth Pennington
According to Dimond's uncontroverted testimony, either
Richardson or Byer stated that since none of the employees
would take an acting supervisors job, "no electrician ever
again would be considered for permanent promotion to
supervision " Richardson, who had several typewritten pages
in his hand, further stated "That from here on they were
going to go strictly by the book, by the contract "0
He illustrated by stating that from thenceforth no one
would be permitted to leave early other than in case of
emergency. One of the employees asked if the employees
could leave early for dental appointments, as they had
in the past. Richardson responded that they could not.
Byer spoke up to say that the Company had need for
acting supervision at least 20 weeks out of the year Dimond
rejoined that if the Company needed another supervisor
it could take its pick from the men in the room. With
this the meeting ended.
Chief Steward Robert Gaulke testified without contra-
diction that in late summer Byer asked if he could do
something about getting an electrician to take an acting
supervisor's job for a night-shift supervisor who was leaving
on vacation Byer added that if one of them did not
take the job he would be required to transfer the night-
shift electricians to the day shift during the period of
time the supervisor was on vacation. Gaulke told Byer
that he would not try to tell the employees what to do,
but that he recognized the problem and would speak to
Dimond about it Gaulke did discuss the matter with
Dimond and Dimond in turn conferred with the electricians.
However, the electricians informed Dimond that they would
not change their minds about filling the acting supervisors
job As a result , the Company was required to transfer
all but two of the night-shift electricians to the day shift
during the night supervisor's absence
In addition to the foregoing, Dimond took up an alleged
grievance of a different nature Thus, at some point in
August the Respondent let it be known that some electricians
would be asked to work during the Labor Day weekend
When Dimond and Gualke met with Hutton to discuss
the matter, Dimond raised an objection to the men being
required to work. As his reason therefore, Dimond asserted
that a number of men were called to work on the previous
3-day holiday weekend but were sent home after working
a total of only 4 hours. This, he asserted, needlessly broke
up the men's long weekend. Hutton told Dimond that
he was wrong on the point. Shortly thereafter Hutton
again met with Dimond and Gaulke and this time produced
records to show that the men in fact had worked no
less than 13 or 14 hours on the previous holiday weekend.
Gaulke credibly testified that this satisfied Dimond and
that the matter was resolved with Dimond stating that
he would withdraw his objection and that he would notify
the employees that the Company would give them as much
overtime as possible.
Aside from Dimond's above activities as a union steward,
Dimond also was involved in an incident of a different
kind As indicated hereinafter, this incident was one of
the matters referred to by Hutton at the time of Dimond's
suspension on September 18 and for this reason I relate
it here Thus, on August 22, a Friday, Dimond spoke
to Richardson and asked if he could leave work 1 hour
before his usual quitting time because he and his family
were leaving on a vacation trip He explained that the
reason for his request was that recently Father Groppi
had been leading demonstrators around the plant in midaf-
ternoons and that he wanted his family to call for him
at the plant before this occurred 6 According to Dimond,
Richardson denied the request, stating that this was not
a valid excuse for getting off early. A short while later
Dimond took his request to Hutton. Hutton also turned
him down. Dimond finally talked to Chief Steward Gaulke
and explained the situation. Gaulke told Dimond to go
ahead and leave early, that he would handle the situation.
Gaulke testified that later that day he took the matter
up with Hutton and that Hutton finally assented to
Dimond's being permitted to leave early. However, the
record reflects that although Hutton in fact left early,
he did so without being informed by Gaulke's foregoing
conversation with Hutton. In short, Dimond left early
notwithstanding the fact that Richardson and Hutton had
denied his request that he be permitted to do so.
B. Dimond's Suspension; Conclusions
Respondent asserts that the sole reason for Dimond's
suspension arose out of his insubordinate conduct toward
a supervisor on the morning of September 18, 1969. The
supervisor involved was Ronald L. Drezdon, an acting
supervisor in the electrician's department,6 and the incident
occurred in a small electrician's room about 7:10 a.m.
In addition to Dimond and Drezdon, five other employees
were present and witnessed the occurrence. The incident,
as conceded by Dimond, is best set forth in his own
words as follows.
Mr. Drezdon come into the room and he asked whose
chair it was at his desk and I said it was his chair,
it was a baby's chair. Then I asked him how he
could face the guys in the room after he had turned
in three of his workers for playing cards after the
' Dimond explained that when an acting supervisor was needed, the
Company would ask one man to take the job and if he declined,
they would go down the line and ask the next man until the job was
filled As indicated, however, none of the employees accepted the position
since June 1969
'Testimony of Dimond
' Dimond testified that he finished work at 3 30 p in and that the
demonstrators appeared shortly before 3
It is undisputed that Drezdon was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act It is evident that his status was different than that of
a regular employee who occasionally volunteered to temporarily fill in
as an acting supervisor , as discussed elsewhere herein
ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY 359
noon bell had rang, and he replied he hadn't turned
in three men, he turned in four, and did I want
to congratulate him then or later. I told him he made
me sick to my stomach and I thought I might vomit.
He said to go ahead and get sick Before I left the
room I closed the tester, thanked the people in the
room for the tester, and I turned to Mr. Drezdon,
and I said, "Mr Drezdon, don't you ever talk to
me again." And then I left
About 9 a.m Dimond was summoned to Hutton's office
by Richardson. Dimond testified that the first thing he
did was to ask for the chief steward, but that Hutton
replied he could be summoned "after it was over." Hutton
proceeded to bring up the incident which occurred between
Dimond and Drezdon In addition to mentioning the facts
which Dimond conceded in his testimony set forth above,
Richardson also charged Dimond with having called Drez-
don a "dirty-.` Dimond responded that he did not
call Drezdon any such name.' At or about this point
in the conversation, Hutton told Dimond that he was
being suspended indefinitely' However, Dimond testified
that the conversation then proceeded as follows:
Mr. Hutton said it was me and only me that was
responsible for the men refusing acting supervision
and overtime, and I told him this wasn't true, that
it was all the men, and he insisted it was dust me
and only me again , and he said that I was a big
shot union leader, a big man on campus He brought
up the fact that I left early, an hour early on a
previous occasion, and proceeded on to call me a
big muscle man and said let 's see me flex my muscles
in the street
Hutton did not refute the foregoing testimony but indeed
conceded bringing up the matters as thus testified to by
Dimond He also conceded that dunng this conversation
he referred to Dimond as a "big man on the campus"
and a "labor boss "10 Near the end of the meeting Hutton
told Richardson to clock Dimond out, whereupon Dimond
again asked that the chief steward be brought in. Hutton
this time telephoned and had the chief steward paged.
' Hutton testified that at the time of this conversation he had not
spoken to Drezdon , but received a report of the entire incident from
Richardson Neither Richardson or Drezdon testified at the hearing
I credit Dimond 's testimony that he in fact did not call Drezdon
any such name Further , Respondent states in its brief "Respondent
does not contend that its suspension of Dimond was based upon his
alleged use of that word "
' Although there is some difference in the testimony between Dimond
and Hutton as to just what point in the conversation Dimond was
told of his suspension , I do not deem this as significant in determining
the issue herein
10 Substantially similar to the testimony of Dimond set forth above,
the context under which these remarks were made were brought out
during cross-examination as follows
Q (By Mr Sweet) Now, Mr Hutton , after you went through
with Mr Dimond relating to his particular stance regarding acting
supervision and overtime , again , this is during the September 18
discussion you had with him when you suspended him, you told
him you felt he was giving the impression he was a big man on
campus and a labor boss by his stance regarding these two issues,
did you not)
A Yes
However, when it was ascertained that he could not be
located, Dimond was dismissed from the office."
Grievance meetings with respect to Dimond's suspension
between Respondent and the Union were held on September
19 (a Friday) and September 22, the end result of which
was that Dimond was reinstated on September 23. Insofar
as pertinent here, these meetings may be summarized as
follows On September 19, Hutton met with Robert Smith,
the latter filling in for Chief Steward Gaulke who was
on vacation. Advising Smith that Dimond had been suspend-
ed for harassing Drezdon, Hutton also told Smith that
"his (Dimond's) attitude reflects that of the big labor boss."
According to the undisputed testimony of Smith, Hutton
thereupon elaborated by stating that "Dimond was the
one who was the cause of the employees not taking acting
supervisory jobs in department 452, that [he] had dealt
with Mr Dimond on various other matters and that he
was familiar with Dimond, and Dimond had a bad attitude."
Hutton finally told Smith that Dimond could return to
work if he would apologize to Drezdon and if he would
give assurance that he would conduct himself in a business-
like adult manner at all times.
Chief Steward Gaulke returned from vacation on the
morning of Monday, September 22, and requested that
Dimond be called to the plant for a meeting that afternoon
This request was granted, whereupon a meeting was held
at that time with those present including Hutton, Gaulke,
Dimond and the president of the local union. Gaulke at
this time succeeded in persuading the Company to abandon
its position that Dimond must apologize to Drezdon After
further discussion the meeting culminated, as Gaulke testi-
fied, with "the union and Dimond agreeing that we would
conduct ourselves in the future in an adult and businesslike
manner with the understanding that certainly we felt that
responsibility also was to be practiced by members of the
management team, the foreman, and supervisors
"Pursuant to the agreement thus reached, Dimond returned
to work the following morning
Further grievance meetings were held on September 23
and 25 dunng which union representatives tried unsuccess-
fully to have the Company expunge Dimond's suspension
from its records and to give him backpay for time lost.
While the Respondent gave various valid reasons for refusing
to do so, it is significant to note that at the September
23 meeting Hutton also told Gaulke that he was "dissatisfied
with Jim Dimond's attitude and his actions in the area
of not filling in for supervisors and the overtime thing,
and [his] attitude and position in going home earlier on
August 22 "12
C. Conclusions
In my opinion, Dimond's insubordinate conduct toward
Foreman Drezdon on the morning of September 18, 1969,
undoubtedly afforded Respondent justifiable grounds for
taking whatever disciplinary action against him it ordinarily
might deem appropriate. Unfortunately for the Respondent,
11 Actually Gaulke was absent that day and it was the acting chief
steward who was paged
" The credited and unrefuted testimony of Gaulke
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
however , the evidence establishes that this was not the
only motive involved in the suspension of this employee
While I have considered Hutton's testimony that Dimond's
conduct in the Drezdon incident was the sole reason for
his suspension , I think it clear that Hutton 's own words
at the time of the suspension , as well as the statements
made by him during subsequent grievance meetings, all
of which are hereinabove set forth, patently demonstrate
that he was also displeased with Dimond 's activities as
a union steward. His pointed and specific references to
these activities at the time of the suspension , and also
dunng the grievance meetings held on September 19 and
23 with Acting Chief Steward Smith and Chief Steward
Gaulke, respectively , compel me to conclude and find that
his displeasure at these activities was a contributing reason
for the action taken . In order to supply a basis for inferring
discrimination , it is necessary to show that one reason
for a discharge in that the employee was engaged in protected
activity . It need not be the only reason but it is sufficient
if it is a substantial or motivating reason , despite the
fact that other reasons may exist. N.L.R.B. v Whitin
Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (C.A. 1)." Accordingly,
since I conclude and find that Dimond 's suspension was
motivated in substantial part by Respondent 's displeasure
with his zealous activities as a union steward , I find that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act."
The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by refusing Dimond 's request
to have the chief steward present during his meeting with
management at the time of his suspension on September
18. The record discloses that apparently at the outset of
the meeting Dimond requested that the chief steward be
brought in but that Hutton at this time refused the request 15
Assuming this to be true, the fact remains that Hutton
did attempt to comply with Dimond 's request before the
meeting was over. I do not deem it necessary to engage
in a discussion here as to whether an employee has an
absolute right to have union representation whenever there
is an occasion for disciplinary action . Suffice it to say
that under all of the circumstances of this case , including
" See also NL RB v Lexington Chair Co, 361 F 2d 283, 285
(C A 6), NL R B v Symons Mfg. Co, 328 F 2d 835 (C A 7)
" As further evidence that Respondent was resentful to Dimond's
stewardship activities , Hutton testified that at the time of the suspension
he spoke to Dimond concerning "what I personally saw or felt was
a bad or poor attitude on the part of an employee and a union steward "
Elaborating upon this statement , Hutton went on to say , interaha
Number two was in the area of the acting supervisors My evaluation
of the situation was that Jim Dimond was wrong in taking the
approach that if we can't get more money for being acting supervisors,
then we'll all just refuse to be acting supervisors i had discussed
that topic at length with Bob Gaulke, the chief steward, and I
personally thought that he was taking the wrong stand on that
issue for the welfare of the employees who were involved in that
department , that he was doing more harm than good to the employees
who were concerned with promotional opportunities
Although Hutton testified that the only time Dimond requested
the presence of the chief steward was at the end of the meeting, I
am inclined to credit Dimond's testimony that this request was first
made at the outset of the meeting Moreover, Dimond testified without
contradiction that he asked for the chief steward while Richardson was
bringing him to the office
Hutton 's attempt to locate the chief steward before the
meeting ended I find the evidence insufficient to support
this allegation in the complaint . Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend that the allegation be dismissed.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices by its suspension of James Dimond , I shall recom-
mend that Dimond be made whole for the time lost during
the appropriate 3-day suspension penod and that all refer-
ences to the said suspension be removed from its personnel
records.
While it is normally the practice of the Board to require
the posting of an appropriate notice as a part of the
remedy for the commission of unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that under all the circumstances of this
case the Respondent not be required to do. My reasons
for so recommending are threefold . First, the Respondent
has had a long history of collective bargaining with the
Union. Thus, the Company has enjoyed a harmonious
relationship with the Union for approximately 32 years.
Except for occasional periods while bargaining was taking
place, the parties have had collective-bargaining agreements
throughout this penod. Moreover, it is noteworthy that
there are approximately 5,500 employees in the bargaining
unit . These are represented by approximately 105 plant
stewards. As Chief Steward Gualke conceded, there has
been no other instance where a steward was disciplined
by the Company, this notwithstanding that heated discus-
sions between the stewards and management was not an
uncommon occurrence. 16
Secondly, I think due recognition should be given to
the fact that the parties invoked the grievance procedure
under the contract and that as a result of the bargaining
which ensued , Dimond was restored to his job with a
minimum of delay Such willingness to follow the collective-
bargaining principle is, in my opinion, a further factor
in Respondent 's favor.
Finally, it is hard to overlook the fact that Dimond,
in the presence of five other employees , engaged in grossly
insubordinate conduct toward a supervisor on the morning
of September 18. Although the evidence establishes that
Respondent 's disciplining of this employee involved mixed
motives, it cannot be said that Dimond would not have
been disciplined even absent the unlawful factors present
here.
Accordingly , and in view of all the foregoing, I do
not find it necessary for the effectuating the policies of
the Act to recommend the posting of notices in this case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
" It should be stated that all of the above factors have been considered
in my determination of the merits herein
ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY 361
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
of employment of James Dimond, Respondent has engaged practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section the Act.
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]