Arrow Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

I
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 117
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AND TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND AND
GRAVEL COMPANY and NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, CIO.
Case No. 9-CA-682. July 9,1594
Decision and Order
On February 4, 1954, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report accompanied by a supporting brief.
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 hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusion, and recom-
mendations contained in the Intermediate Report.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by the National Maritime Union of America, CIO, herein
called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called respectively the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director of
the Ninth Region , Cincinnati , Ohio, issued his complaint dated October 8, 1953, against
Arrow Transportation Company and Tennessee Valley Sand and Gravel Company,
herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge and
the complaint , together with notice of hearing thereon , were duly served on all
parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged that the Respond-
ent, commencing on or about June 3, 1953, and at all times thereafter , through and by
its agents and authorized representatives , including Howard G. King, L. E. Willson,
Earl DeArman , William Nester, Mahlon R . Shelbourne , and Mrs. B. H. Thomas,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is now interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act by inter alia:
(a) threatening to discharge and discharging its employees in order to discourage
their engagement and participation in concerted activities;
(b) threatening to discharge and discharging its employees in order to discourage
membership in, sympathy for, and activity on behalf of National Maritime Union of
America, CIO, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Union;
(c) refusing to teinstate its employees because of their engagement and participa-
tion in concerted activities;
(d) refusing to reinstate its employees because of their membership in, sympathy
for, and activities in behalf of the Union;
(e) threatening to arrest and imprison its employees unless they vacated the liv-
ing quarters of Respondent 's towboats;
( f)' et'icting its employees from their living quarters upon Respondent 's towboats;
109 NLRB No. 19.
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(g) threatening to tie up Respondent's towboats and threatening to cease engage-
ment in transportation of commodities for hire as a contract and common carrier
if the said employees persisted in their concerted activities;
(h) threatening to tie up Respondent's towboats and not engage in transporta-
tion of commodities by river for hire as a contract and common carrier if the Union
became the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees;
all for the purpose of discouraging engagements in concerted activities and dis-
couraging membership in, sympathy for, and activity in behalf of the Union; and
further, that on or about June 4, 1953, the Respondent discharged its employees:
Mack Arington, Isaac Brunston, Presley D. Ford, Johnnie H Gibson, Melvin Leslie,
H. L. Maynard, Edd Rickard, Ervin B. Sledge, Sam Stricklin, Samuel M. Stricklin,
William D. Warren, Dudley F. Wright, Claude Moore, and Burt Woodford, because
of their engagement in concerted activity and because of their membership in and
activity in behalf of the Union, and at all times since June 4, 1953, has failed and
refused to reinstate said employees because of such membership and activity in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, and after the Respondent, in its answer, had timely denied
the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices, a hearing was held on Novem-
ber 3 and 4, 1953, at Paducah, Kentucky, before John C. Fischer, the undersigned
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties except
the Union were represented by counsel and all participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence pertinent to the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case-in-chief the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint was
denied. The General Counsel presented oral argument in closing and the Respondent
availed itself of the opportunity afforded all parties by filing a brief with the
undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, with its principal business office located
at Sheffield, Alabama, is a common and contract carrier for hire of commodities
by river, operating towboats and barges in interstate commerce on the Tennessee
River and its tributaries, the Ohio River from its mouth to Louisville, Kentucky, and
the Mississippi River from its confluence with the Ohio River to St. Louis, Missouri,
operating under a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity of the Interstate
Commerce Commission, such certificate being numbered W-114. During the past
12 months and at all times herein material, the Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations as a common contract carrier by river for hire, trans-
ported commodities, including pig iron, grain, construction machinery, and con-
struction material valued in excess of $1,000,000 to public utilities, to instrumen-
talities of commerce, and for interchange with other common and contract carriers,
and to enterprises located in the States of Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois,
Indiana, and Missouri, which enterprises are engaged in producing products and
electric energy destined for out-of-State shipment valued in excess of $100,000.
It is found that the Respondent at all times material hereto was and is now engaged
in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Maritime Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Salient facts
This case involves the crews of 2 of 4 inland waterway tugboats, owned by Arrow
Transportation Company and Tennessee Valley Sand and Gravel Company. The
tugs in question were the motor vessels Arroco and Norris. These vessels plied
between Cairo, Illinois, on the Mississippi River and the upper reaches of the Tennes-
see River to Oak Ridge or Knoxville, Tennessee, towing cargo barges. Significantly,
the 650-mile water route traversed serves the important atomic, hydro, and steam
,energy producing installations of this area of the Nation, as well as the adjacent
chemical and ore reduction plants. On the evening of June 3, 1953, the Norris, en-
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 119
route =to Cairo and commanded by Captain Ed Qualls, was proceeding downstream
with its tow of barges. In response to telephonic orders from William K. Nestor,
the boat dispatcher at Sheffield, Alabama, Qualls dropped his tow at Owen's Island
near Paducah around 7:30 p. in. and was relieved of command by Captain James
Seaton, who had been advised of the changed orders by a phone call to his home.
The orders to Seaton then read that the vessel would pick up certain barges there and
bring them back up the river. The Norris tied onto its tow and proceeded across the
river to the Standard Oil dock arriving around 9 p. in. The Arroco, under command
of Captain William H. Bloodworth, operating in shuttle service, was proceeding up
the river from Joppa, Illinois, enroute to Johnsonville, Tennessee, with orders to pick
up another tow of barges at Paducah and deliver them at their destination. Instead,
the Arroco proceeded across the river and joined the Norris at the Standard Oil dock.
The captains and crews concertedly lashed the vessels together and moved them
down to the Paducah "City Dock" arriving about midnight. From this point on,
and at all times material to this case, these two crews no longer operated their re-
spective vessels. Instead, management took over the vessels and eventually put them
back in service, claiming that the shipmasters had failed to carry out their orders
and that the crew members purposely rendezvoused at Paducah, tied up the vessels,
and became guilty of "near mutiny." The men contend that they tied up the vessels
because of engine trouble on the Norris and in order to obtain supplies and charge the
Respondent with the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
The shoal upon which the hitherto apparently amicable employer-employee rela-
tionship` grounded and eventually foundered was in form of a statement indited on
May 23, 1953, to the Company and directed to the personal attention of Col. L. E.
Willson, president, Howard King, vice president and secretary, Earl DeArman, ma-
rine superintendent, and Bill Nestor, vessel dispatcher. This petition was signed by
some 35 crew members including captains, pilots, engineers, and other ship officers
of the Respondent's fleet of 4 vessels and recited:
We the employees of said Company and the undersigned have agreed to ask 10
days off with pay each calendar month of the year. Beginning the 1st day of
the following month June 1st 1953 and being due to each member of the crew
on each Boat of said Company: As all other said Companies are giving days off
with more money than we are now making. Signed by Said Employees of
A. T. C. O. & T. V. S. G. Co. (follows 35 signatures). P. S. This is to be in
effect by or on the 1st day of June 1953 by all signatures above.
Admittedly, the company officials received this communication which was charac-
terized by them as an ultimatum of the employees-impossible of performance by
the Company because the effect of meeting this demand would be to raise the payroll
by 50 percent.
B. Testimony explaining the "days off" issue
Presley Ford, the chief engineer of the Arroco, testified that following discussions
among the employees which had been going on over a period of approximately 21/a
months, he mailed a letter to the Company about May 20, 1953, signed by the crew
members of the Arroco, the Norris, the Atco, and the John Luchow. He said, "I
wrote a letter to the company and I made a copy of this letter and sent one to Mr.
DeArman and Mr. Keene [King] and Mr. Nestor."
Vice-President King explained that the men, by this letter, were asking for what
would have amounted to more than a 50 percent increase in pay to the Company
stating:
When one man gets off and one gets on, we have to pay both men for that day,
so that's double day's pay . . . they wanted ten days off with pay for every
twenty they worked, but they wanted to get their present rate of pay and that
had the effect of raising the payroll fifty percent.
He explained the time-off policy of the Company as follows:
Around 1950 or early in 1951, it was the policy to give all employees one day
a week, or 52 days a year off with pay. We were constantly at odds with the
men about how many days they had coming. The girl in the payroll department
would make a mistake and not have the right number of days for the men, or
the men would make a mistake and think they had no days coming and they did
have, and in an effort to keep that trouble down and try to do better by the men
so that we wouldn't have that difficulty of the days off, we decided to increase
our rates ten percent, and we decided to do that in this way: We took the then
existing rates per day or per month and in the case of monthly rates, multiplied
them by 12 to get a yearly rate. In the case of a daily rate, we multiplied them
by 365 to get a yearly rate. We divided these yearly [monthly] rates by .. .
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
313, which was the number of days that the men were supposed to work and
that allowed them their 52 days off. Then, that gave us a new daily rate for
each man which we increased ten percent.
Under this plan the men were "still operating under that same situation or agree-
ment of being entitled to 52 days a year off," but they were not paid for days-off duty.
They could either take the time off, or if "they didn't want to take the time off to
make the extra money, it was up to the men."
However, in view of the postscript at the bottom of the letter which said: "This is
to be in effect by or on the 1st day of June ..." the Company did not reply to the
letter stating:
We understood this to be in the nature of an ultimatum, not a request to bar-
gain. They simply told us that "we want this by this time" period. They
didn't write us and ask to talk to anybody, and no employee has ever been
unable to see or talk to any company official at any time about any grievance
he may have.
Further: "we couldn't have effected the substance of that letter on June the 1st"
With regard to the policy of other barge firms giving days off per month, and also
paying the same rate "that you were" Mr. King testified:
I know that some companies give days off with pay. What their rates of pay
are, I cannot say, but I can say this, too, that of the companies that we compete
with who operate the boats with the same horsepower as ours, our rates of pay
are slightly above theirs.
Captain Bloodworth, who was initially employed by the Company on October 31,
1952, testified that the company policy was the same around the first of June as it
was when he was initially employed but he understood the terms and conditions of
his employment at the time he was initially employed, and he did not understand the
conditions to be that one would work 20 days and receive 10 days' vacation with
pay. Although Presley Ford, the author of the manifesto, testified: "there wasn't
no time off," Captain Bloodworth testified in this connection:
Q. From your observation of the employees of the company is it your im-
pression that none of the employees are given time off? -
A. No, sir, I wasn't under that impression, I was under the impression that
part of them did get some time off . . . Well, some of the captains received
four days off each month.
Mr. King was interrogated on this point:
Q. But would you say that during April and May that every one of the em-
ployees took time off and was away from the boat?
A. Sure, they have. You heard Captain Seaton testify to the fact that he was
coming back to the boat after being off.
He added that the crew members were in the same category as the captains, but there
was such a turnover in deck hands that they did not stay with them long enough to
take time off. Fuither testimony showing the men actually had been off was that of
Melvin Leslie, the pilot, who testified he rejoined the Norris on May 22 or 23 after
being off a few days, and Nestors's testimony that he picked up Bob Qualls, chief
engineer of the Arroco, and Mr. Hassel, a boat engineer, all of whom apparently
were off at that time. It is clear that the men could and did take time off, that they
had been compensated for it in advance at the rate of 52 days per year, and actually
were following a reasonable river practice.
C. The report to Company on alleged breakdown of the Norris
Shortly after warping into the Standard Oil dock, Melvin H. Leslie, pilot of the
Norris phoned Nestor in Sheffield , according to his testimony to discuss repairs on
the Norris as she was broken down . However , before boarding her at Guntersville
Locks, Leslie testified that he had talked with Nestor at the office in Sheffield:
When I went through the office, he [Nestor] had mentioned this letter that we
had written in requesting days off with pay , which most of the companies give,
and he had asked me in the course of the conversation when it was brought up,
whether or not eventually the boys would go on strike and it would tie the boats
up, what I would do, so I told him, I said , well, of course I can 't run a boat
myself, but I don 't intend to do a thing like that , go on a strike, and if you can
recrew the boats to send them out, I will be ready to go.
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 121
Nestor testified that he told him that since he was there and broken down to get the
necessary stores that he needed, if any, and to get out of there as soon as possible.
Nestor testified that Captain Qualls called him from Kentucky Dam and told him
that everything was running fairly smoothly. Significantly, Qualls could and did
operate the alleged broken down Norris, when recrewed, 254 miles back up-the river
with Nestor. Significant also, to me, is the fact that at approximately the same
time that the pilot called the dispatcher, the engineer of the Norris, H. L. Maynard
phoned Mrs. B. H. Thomas, the Paducah officer manager, at her home. Mrs.
Thomas testified as follows:
The engineer called me, Mr. Maynard, the engineer off the Norris, I believe it
was, about 9:15, 1 can't remember, and he said they was having trouble on the
Norris, and I said "Where are you?" and, he said, "Standard Oil," and I said,
"well, I understand that you wasn't to stop at Paducah," I said , "I had orders
from Mr. Nestor that you didn't need anything."
Mrs. Thomas continued:
He said, well, he said, "we got this little trouble and we need some groceries."
And I said, well, of course, if you have to stop there and lose any time, if you
think you need any groceries, get them. So, the next I heard from them was at
7:15 on the morning, I guess of the fourth.
Next in sequence is the Arroco version. After the Arroco moved the Norris from
the Standard Oil dock down to the City dock at the foot of Broadway, Captain
Bloodworth telephoned Superintendent DeArman at his home in Sheffield, Alabama.
(According to Mr. DeArman he asked Captain Bloodworth what time it was and
Bloodworth told him it was 1:25 in the morning.) Bloodworth testified:
I told him about the boats, about the Norris being broken down, and then I
told him we had a blowed head gasket on one engine of the Arroco and then I
told him while we was talking that the boys wanted to know what had been
done or what was going to be done about the letter that we wrote in requesting
some time off. Mr. DeArman told me that he-he hesitated for a long time, and
he finally told me to just stand by until we heard from him further.
Further: "I just turned around and told the boys, 'He said for us to stand by until
we got further orders from him.' " Presley Ford said:
Captain Bloodworth talked to Mr. DeArman after we delivered the Norris
down to the city dock. After he got through with the conversation, he turned
around to all the crew on both boats, and he said that Mr. DeArman told us
to stand by until further orders.
Captain Seaton stated: "The only orders I had from Captain Bloodworth was to
stand by." William Warren testified: "I heard him say that he had made a phone call
and we was to stand by until we got further orders from Alabama." He did not think
Bloodworth had any conversation with him and the crew members prior to the time
Mrs. Thomas came down to the City dock. Concluding, according to Captain Blood-
worth "part of the boys went to bed and part of them stood watch."
Superintendent DeArman testified:
On the morning of June the 4th Captain Harrison Bloodworth telephoned me
from Paducah and asked what we had done about the letter that the men had
sent in , and I told him nothing. He said that the Norris and the Arroco had
got together at Paducah and that the men had decided to tie up."
Captain Bloodworth denied telling DeArman that the boats were tied up, and Melvin
Leslie said he was standing right beside Captain Bloodworth when he spoke to De-
Arman and denied that he said that the men had tied the boats up or that they were
refusing to work.
DeArman testified that he did not request Bloodworth to do anything with respect
to untying the boats and completing their work, in compliance with their orders,
explaining:
I just didn't know what to tell him to do in that instance , so I advised him to
stay where he was and asked him where he was calling from and he told me that
it was at the City dock, and that he would hear further from me. I also asked
him where the Norris was and he told me she was there alongside them. He also
said that the Norris was having some trouble with the engine and that they
were over there working on it at that time. I asked him where James Seaton
was, and he told me that he was over on the Norris, and asked if I wanted to
talk to him , and then I told him no.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DeArman next called Mr King and told him what had happened
that Captain Bloodworth had called me and that the Arroco and the
Norris had got together and had decided to tie up. So, we discussed what we
should do and decided that there wasn't very much, if anything, that we could
do at that hour of the morning, and that we would just wait until the next morn-
ing, and come to the office early, and we agreed to be there about seven o'clock,
and then at that time, we would discuss it further and call Mrs. Thomas and see
what we could do about it.
And-"We did that."
King verified this, placing DeArman's call to him around 2 o'clock. He testified:
"I told Mr. DeArman, `In view of the fact that the crews had refused to work, I know
of nothing we could do until morning.' " In regard to the meeting in the morning,
King testified:
We called Mrs. Thomas, our representative in Paducah, and asked her if she
thought she could go down to the boats and talk to the fellows and get them to
go ahead and finish the trips they were engaged in. . . Neither boat was sup-
posed to stop in Paducah for any reason, so we asked Mrs. Thomas to see if she
couldn't get the boats to come on up and complete the trips that they were in the
process of completing, and she said that she thought that she could talk them
into coming out.
DeArman testified:
So, we called Mrs. Thomas and told her what had happened and asked her to
go down to the boats and see what she could do and it she could get the boats
out, why that was what we wanted her to do, and if she couldn't why that we
would want them put over in the West Kentucky Fleet.
He further testified that neither he nor Mr. King ordered or directed her, as a
representative of the Company, to terminate the employment of any of the members
of the crew of the two vessels involved. King testified that both he and DeArman
were on the telephone together-on separate extensions-when they called Mrs.
Thomas. When asked if they told Mrs. Thomas the reason for the crew's quitting he
replied:
I don't know that we had a detailed discussion into the detailed reason for their
quitting, we just told her that they had notified us that they had tied the boats
and weren't going to work and wanted to see if she couldn't get the crews to go
ahead and carry out their orders.
Mrs. Thomas verified that they called her the next morning from Sheffield, saying
that it was Mr. King who called, but explained: "I don't believe I ever talked to
DeArman or King in the office that the other either DeArman or King wasn't on the
phone-saying 'I talked to both of them.' " She testified:
He said that there seemed to be some trouble on the boats at the foot of
Broadway. He said to go down and see what I could do. He said, "Of course,
we would like for them to deliver their tow, but if they won't, let them select
six men to bring the two boats up and the Colonel and I will talk to them about
their grievances. If they won't the best thing to do is to put them in the West
Kentucky Fleet for safekeeping." So, they hung up and that was all that was
said, and I said, "Well, I'll get ready right away and go down and see what I
can do, I believe I can get the boys to work . . .
Later in the testimony she quoted King as follows: ". . he said that they're having
some trouble with the boats down at the foot of Broadway. . . . Refusing to work
until they heard from them regarding a letter they had written." With reference
to the men's request for extra days off, she testified that King "said that if they
would come get the boats up there they would talk to them in Sheffield."
Immediately after talking to King, Mrs. Thomas explained that she "got another
thought" and called back to talk to Mr. King "it must have been not later than
seven thirty, and they had gone out for coffee" so she talked to Colonel Willson, the
president of the Company:
I said, "Colonel, would you care if I just really talked to them like I think
they should be talked to and insist that they bring their tows up and then talk
to you since the tows do not need to be delivered?" And he said, "That will be
fine if you can do it."
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 123
She explained: "I wanted to see if they objected to me in a way pleading with
the boys." Her purpose in calling back was not to ask if she could go see them,
but:
I asked him if I could lust in a way on my own words show the boys they were
doing wrong, and would it be all right if I put my own personal plea to them.
When asked why she thought she could get these men to put these boats back in
operation under their orders again, she said:
Well, I think I was well liked always by most of the crews that ever worked
for us, and they said time after-they said right there that morning, "Mrs.
Thomas, if everyone was like you these boats wouldn't have to be tied up," and
I thought maybe I could talk them to go on-
Mrs. Thomas went down to the City dock on June 4 sometime around 8 o'clock
a. in. (between 8 and 8.15 probably) and the crews of both boats gathered in the
galley of the Norris, at her request, where she talked to them. She testified that
practically the whole crew of both boats were present-probably 14. Her testimony
was as follows: "I said, `Now, what is your trouble,' and they said, "Well, they
never answered our letter,' they said, `we're going to tie these boats up.' " Blood-
worth and Leslie denied saying or hearing anyone make these statements.
D. After crews' refusal to deliver tows
Mrs. Thomas then testified:
I said, "Well, boys, there's two things that we can do, but there is another
that I wish you would do." I said, "If you won't deliver the tows, you can
select your six men to take the boats up there to Sheffield together and when
you get there, Colonel will talk to you, and Mr. King, and if you don't, we
will have to put these boats over in the West Kentucky Fleet for safekeeping."
Now, "No," they said, "That wouldn't be fair to the other boys," they said.
I said, "Well, I will let you select six that you want to represent you," and
I said, "Well, now, I will tell you, boys, we're all just a jump ahead of our
shirt. We all need to work." I said, "Let's deliver these tows and the first
boat that goes up, 1 will call in ahead so there will be no delay and the Colonel'
will see them. If the first crew doesn't get what they want, let the second
crew do the same thing and then that will be time enough to cause some trouble."
No, they wouldn't do that.
She further testified that she requested the crew to put those boats back in operation
and: . then I begged them to. I didn't make a direct demand, but I asked
them if they would." When asked who said "Well, we can't do it," she replied,
"Well, I wouldn't say which one, probably three or four "
Q. Which, three or four?
A. I would say that Mr. Press Ford said that, but I couldn't say who else
said that, that wouldn't be treating the other fellows right.
Elsewhere she testified: "Captain Seaton and Pres Ford and Bloodworth, says, `Well,
we can't do it.' " Also she said Mr. Sledge did most of the talking-in fact more
of the talking than anyone else aboard that boat.
While not in agreement as to the exact time Mrs. Thomas returned, crew members
Ford, Gibson, Sledge, and Warren all testified that Mrs. Thomas did return at a
later time that morning and wanted six volunteers to clear the boats to Sheffield.
Gibson, a new deckhand, testified that Mrs. Thomas came down to the docks "two
or three different times off and on during the day" after the 8 o'clock meeting.
The second time she came she was alone, and this was the time she asked for the
six volunteers. Sledge testified that Mrs. Thomas came down somewhere around
10 o'clock. Both Sledge and Gibson testified that she came down another time
around noon, and that she had some law enforcement officers with her and Mr.
Shelbourne, the lawyer. Sledge said that was when they moved the boat over into
the Fleet. Gibson said she did not ask him, but "she was wanting to clear the
boats over to the fleet, West Kentucky Fleet." Warren testified that she came down
about noon and had some law officers from Paducah and Mr. Shelbourne with her,
and that this was the time she asked for six volunteers to move the boats to Sheffield.
Neither Gibson, Warren, nor Sledge could recall that Mrs. Thomas made a request
that they put the boats back into operation, at the 8 o'clock meeting.
Captain Seaton did not recall that Mrs. Thomas on June 4, either on her first
trip or on a subsequent trip, requested that the boats be put back out in the river
and start operating again. He did not remember any officials of the city or of the
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
county appearing during the afternoon, but he did testify that Mrs. Thomas came
down again and "she might have talked to some of the boys, but I didn't hear it."
Ford merely stated that she came back later on that morning and asked for six
volunteers to clear the boats up the river, the purpose of this being "that Colonel
Wilson would like to have the'boats back to Sheffield." Examined by Counsel
Shelbourne, Presley Ford testified:
Q. Now, Mr. Ford, you mean to tell me that she came down there and said
that Colonel Wilson said to tie the boats up and then turned around and asked
you to get the boats out in the river traffic?
A. That's right.
Q. You say that's what she did?
A. When she first came down there she said that Colonel Wilson said that
he would not give the days, that he would tie the boats up and have them taken
to Sheffield.
Q. Now, how soon after that was it that . . . she tried to get you to get the
boats out in the river?
A. Well, I don't remember just exactly.
Q. Well, was it at the same time, or was it at a different time during the day?
A. No, I don't think it was on the same day, no, sir, not that I can recall in
my memory.
Q. Now, that statement about what Colonel Wilson said, was made by her
on her visit to the boat that morning?
A. That's my best recollection.
Q. How many additional visits did she make to the boat that day?
A. Well, I just don't recall, but I do know that she was down there around
about eleven thirty because we was eating dinner, she came down and asked
for volunteers.
Q. Now, do you recall whether or not she made her request about getting
the boats out in the river on her first trip or her trip there at dinner time,
or at some other trip she made?
A. I just don't recall.
E. The crew's version
The crew's version of what Mrs. Thomas said at the 8 o'clock meeting was in sub-
stance as follows: "Colonel Wilson told me [Mrs. Thomas] to tie up these boats. He
said that he would leave them tied up for six months before he would give days off."
Melvin Leslie testified that Mrs. Thomas said, "Now, boys, I hate to tell you, but I
have just been talking to Colonel Wilson . . . and he says to pay you all off and
he will tie the boats up before he will grant any days off with pay. He will tie them
up for six months and hire all his towing." Captain Bloodworth, Ford, Sledge, Cap-
tain Seaton, Gibson, and Warren had similar versions. Ford, Sledge, Gibson, and
Warren testified that was all that was said. Sledge testified: " . . after that, there
was nothing much. Mrs. Thomas left at that time." Warren didn't recall that she
made any other statement, or "hearing anybody asking anything. That's about all
I heard. I was getting ready to get off." Leslie testified that he got his clothes and
left the boat. Having heard the testimonies and observed the witnesses, I credit
Mrs. Thomas' version.
F. Refusal to move boats without pay
Mrs. Thomas continued her story of the 8 o'clock meeting as follows: After testify-
ing that the boys said they would not deliver the tows to their destination she said:
Well, if you won't there's nothing else that we can do but store these boats. I
don't say that you boys will harm these boats, but the beggars in the city will
and they will have to go over into West Kentucky for safekeeping.
According to Mrs. Thomas their reply to this was: "Well, you won't move these
boats until we have been paid off." She then testified:
I said, "Well, you know you've got a pay day due Saturday," their time went in
every other Saturday and every other Sunday was payday, and I said, "You
know it takes time to work up these payrolls," and I said, "I certainly know they
will have the payroll practically made up for the regular pay day." "No, we
want pay today, and our travel expenses to go home and a day's pay for those
out of town." I said, "You know boys when you quit you don't get pay, and
you certainly don't get paid for traveling if you quit." But, I said, "I will, if you
give me the time."
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 125
Pilot Leslie denied that he had said or heard anyone else say that they would not
move the boats until they were paid, or that they asked for their pay from Mrs.
Thomas. Captain Bloodworth denied that he made the statement or heard anyone
else make it-namely that the men said they would not move the boats until they
were paid and that they want their pay immediately. He testified that neither he
nor any of the crew members asked Mrs. Thomas for their pay. Captain Seaton,
crew members Warren, Gibson, Sledge, Ford, and Leslie testified that they did not,
nor did they hear any other crew members, ask for pay or refuse to work. In this
conflict, I credit Mrs. Thomas.
G. The Company arranges to pay o$
Secretary King testified that they were told by Mrs. Thomas that "in addition to
the refusal to work, the men had demanded that they be paid off," stating: "We told
her to find out how many days the men had coming so we would know what sort of
checks to send them." Nestor testified that Mrs. Thomas phoned on the morning
of June 4 and King and DeArman were out and she "said that the men had demanded
their pay and she gave me the men's names which included the number of days that
were due them in pay," and she gave him the names of the two complete crews of the
boats. Nestor gave this information to King. DeArman knew of the conversation
between Mrs. Thomas and the office in which she gave the time due the crew. Ac-
cording to Mrs. Thomas' testimony, she procured the information about the time
coming to the men which did not show on the payroll, from Presley Ford on the
Arroco and Captain Seaton on the Norris, and she called `Sheffield' and gave them
the time. According to her testimony, `Sheffield' said: "Well now, you meet us at
Lackey's at four o'clock and we will call the payroll off to you and you arrange with
Mr. Lackey to have the cash and make the payment." Mrs. Thomas then went back
to the boat-"it was some time before noon"-and told the crew collectively to be
at Lackey's grocery at 4 o'clock that afternoon and she would pay them explaining:
Well, they went off in a huddle, Presley Ford and Bloodworth and Seaton, and
they came back and said that that would be all right. . But they didn't want
the boats moved from the foot of Broadway, they said, and I said, "That's got
to be done."
H. State police officials enter the picture
Mrs. Thomas then called Mr. Shelbourne, the company attorney, and he came
down with the sheriff and two deputies as she "believed that we might have a little
trouble." Examined by counsel she testified:
Q. Now what trouble were you referring to?
A. Well, when you get a bunch of men mad , sometimes you may have a
riot.
Q. Now, I want to know why and what was the basis for your taking the
police with you?
A. I thought that they probably would object to me untying that boat and
breaking it loose to leave, and that is what I went down there for and that is what
I meant to do.
She had called to have the Smiley, a little harbor tug, owned by Walker Boat Yard,
come over and Mr. Walker said according to Mrs. Thomas "one of the boys had
called and told them not to come after it." Mr. Walker, further quoted by Mrs.
Thomas, said: "I told them as long as I was in the harbor business and you called
for a boat to move, I'd have to move it." 1
Attitude of Crew
When the Smiley arrived Mrs. Thomas testified that the boys said : "... you
don't need to have the Smiley tow it over, we'll take it over." Her reply was, "Well
we have the boat here, so we will let them tow it over." Captain Bloodworth testi-
fied that he offered to take the boats over himself. He went up in the boat and tried
to start the engine on the Arroco, but the cams were up on it, and the engine would
not take then, and he ran the air down and could not start it. At this point, it was
my opinion that the crew realized that they had carried the matter too far-actually
a point beyond return. Mrs. Thomas testified that the boys then said that they had
1 This example of "hearsay evidence" from sincere witnesses like this one is typical of
these cases, and although not uniformly excluded, may never be the basis upon which a
report is founded.
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no place to stay and she told them they were welcome to go over to the Fleet with
the boats and stay:
I said, "Of course you will have to walk back from Walker's Boat Yard," I said,
"but come on and go." When I said that about half the crew jumped off. I said,
"Are you going to untie this boat for me, with respect to old age, or am I going
to have to untie it?" And, Sledge jumped on and said, "I'll untie it, Mrs.
Thomas," which he did.
On cross-examination she answered:
Q. Isn't it a fact that Mr. Sledge agreed to untie the boat?
A. After it was over, yes. I don't know if he would have agreed to have done
it if he hadn't seen the sheriff or not.
Further testimony, perhaps irrelevant, but typical of untutored witnesses, regard-
ing the attitude of the crew may be found in the following. Mrs. Thomas reported a
heart-to-heart talk with Sledge and another boy when they were moving the boats
over to the Fleet. She asked Sledge what he had done before shipping aboard a river
tug and he said he had been a plumber. She said: "Well, why are you working on
this boat at the salary the plumbers get?" His reply was: "I like the river . . . I
like this boat and we'll have higher wages, we'll see to that."
With regard to the 8 o'clock meeting in the morning of June 4, Mrs. Thomas
quoted Leslie as saying: "Now Mrs. Thomas, I don't want you to think that I am
causing this trouble . . . if you can get anybody else to go out I will go out." Ex-
amined by General Counsel Naimark:
Q. So that Leslie didn't quit, then, did he?
A. Oh, yes, he had to go out with the boys, but he said he would go back if
any of them would go back.
Q. What did he mean by that, Mrs. Thomas'
A. I'll take the boat out. He said, "If you can get enough to go with me."
And then I called a Mr.-the cook's wife, what was her name-Woodford-
Captain Woodford and he was coming down to take the boat out and he came to
me later and he said, "Mrs. Thomas," he said, "I can't do it because the men have
threatened me."
This answer was not only evidentiarily responsive, but also, it was illuminative. See
Leslie's earlier testimony in this report.
After the Smiley moved the boats over to Walker's Fleet she asked Captain Wright,
who had not been with the Company long, to look after the boats. She told him "Let
the cooks go ahead and cook and feed the crew." She asked the boys to stay out of
the pilot house and the engine room, and asked the "Smiley to take us on down to
Broadway" and she went back to Lackey's store.
1. Company's pay plans changed
According to Mrs. Thomas' testimony she then went to see if she could get an
off duty policeman to watch the boats during the night, but being unsuccessful, she
went back to Lackey's store where she called Mr. King in Sheffield about the pay
plans. She testified he told her: "Well, we have decided that that will mess up our
payroll, we better pay by check. We will have the checks in there by midnight."
With regard to this change in plans Mr. King testified:
We first thought that we would arrange for Lackey's Grocery to pay them off
in cash, then we decided that that probably wouldn't be very wise because we
got a lot of unemployment compensation deductions and one thing and another
to make in the man's pay, and it might foul up our payroll . so we told
Mrs. Thomas we would make the checks in our office and send them into Paducah.
(The checks were flown in by airplane.)
When told that the checks would not be there until midnight she asked the boys
if that was all right and told them to set a place for her to meet them. They said:
"We will have to go out and talk to our advisor." The boys agreed that they would
be over on the boat, and she told them she would be there when the checks came in,
and she.did go back to the boats over at the Fleet at midnight to take the checks.
Warren, Sledge, and Bloodworth all indicated that they went to Lackey's at 4 o'clock
to get their checks and did not get them, and Mrs. Thomas told them to stay on the
boat until paid.
J. The crew is paid
Dispatcher Nestor came in with the checks and she met him at Walker's Boat Yard
just before midnight, and Mrs. Thomas got the small boat to take her across the
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 127
river. She testified that several out-of-town crewmen said: "Well, I'm not going to
leave here until I get travel expense and a day's pay to go home." Her reply was:
"well, now, this is all the checks I have, boys, why not accept these. If we owe you
anything, you will be able to collect it." Most of them took the checks but several
of the boys were not there.
Captain Bloodworth testified that Mrs. Thomas brought the checks over around
midnight, and told the boys that it would be all right to stay on the boat until morn.
ing, that she would be over the next morning and lock things up and straighten things
up. She asked if anybody would help her, and 2 or 3 said they would. Sledge stated
that when they got their checks at midnight, Mrs. Thomas told the men to stay on
the boat. Mrs. Thomas testified that she gave them permission to stay on the boat,
She,told them she would be back in the morning to get the groceries off, the fresh
stuff, because she was too tired to do it that night. Since their time was up at mid-
night, she expressed the hope that they would help her with the groceries and they
said "we will."
K. The Company's custom in paying its men
Secretary King testified that in making out the checks for the men, the information
came partly from the timesheets and partly from Mrs. Thomas. He admitted this
was unusual. He said Sunday was the normal payday. "but you see it is our under.
standing that whenever a seaman quits and demands his pay, we've got to pay him.
Federal statutes read that way. Mr. Davidson told me later in my office that that
is not true with other men, but that is the law." He said this was the first time they
had ever had two boat crews quit at one time. King also testified that they, the
head office, had not received any word directly from the crew members that they
wouldn't work any longer, stating: "We got the information from Mrs. Thomas and
through Captain Bloodworth." Having hitherto credited Mrs. Thomas' testimony
because I deemed her to be the sincerest and most objective witness of the whole
array who appeared before me in this trial-she being no longer in the employ of the
Company after 20 years' service, and with a son in the riverboat service, and bearing
the friendship and respect of the rivermen-I attribute this statement to her.
Superintendent DeArman with regard to the practices of the Company testified:
Q. What has been the practice of the company with respect to the payment of
wages due employees who voluntarily quit or cease their employment?
A. We pay them off whenever they want their money.
Accordingly, in light of the accepted testimony and of the sequence of facts as
shown by the acts and conduct of all the principals, the conclusion is inevitable that
these men.voluntarily quit their employment, and I so find and hold.
L. Threatening to arrest and imprison employees
The allegation that the Company threatened to arrest and imprison its employees
unless they vacated the living quarters of Respondent's towboats, and evicting its
employees from their living quarters upon Respondent's towboats derives from the
same set of circumstances. These circumstances involve the instances when State
and county police officers accompanied Respondent's officials on visits to the tugboats.
When Mrs Thomas returned to the City dock-at noon on June 4 after her morning
meeting with the intention of moving the boats across the river to the West Kentucky
Fleet, she had arranged to have County Sheriff Bannistor and two of his deputies on
the dock.
Obviously, she had convinced the sheriff that she was entitled protection, whether
she needed it or not-and he was duty bound to go. She and the crew were at an
impasse with reference to moving the boats, and she was determined to carry out her
instructions and make the boats secure at the mooring area. To this end, she had
engaged the tug Smiley. Her testimony in this connection was as follows:
Q. When you arrived at the boat, at any time did you have the police with
you?
A. Soon atter twelve o'clock why the sheriff and the deputies came down
there when I was getting to move the boats.
Q. Did they come with you?
A. No, they did not.
Q. Did you ask them to come?
A. I called Mr. Slielbourne and told him that I was afraid that we was going
to have some trouble.
Q. Now, what trouble were you referring to?
A. Well, when you get a bunch of men mad, sometimes you may have a riot.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel Naimark argued, in testing credibility, that since she had testified that the
men had quit, she needed no such protection, and the Trial Examiner sustained him
in this right to ply his questions over the objection of Counsel Shelbourne, contending
that the questions were argumentative. The rule is that counsel may test credibility
up to but short of the point of harassment of a witness. Further:
Q. You said you were well liked by the boys, didn't you?
A. I certainly was.
Q. And you testified, I believe, that the men had quit.
A. That's right.
Q. Now, I want to know why and what was the basis for your taking the
police with you?
A. I thought that they probably would object to me untying that boat and
and breaking it loose to leave, and that is what I went down there for and that
is what I meant to do.
To me, this seems to be a very satisfactory answer and a good reason for her
actions in calling for police protection in carrying out her duty. The captains
and the crews had quit, and she was in command. In any event she was speaking
for and representing the owners. It is a well-established principle of maritime law
that a captain, although in command of his vessel and all lives aboard, when under-
way, is still subject to the orders and will of the owners. Here the vessels were tied
to the dock. Whether principles of Admiralty Law are applicable to this type of
river barging is not for decision in this case, although Respondent's counsel, in his
brief, characterizes the action of the officers and crews as being "near mutiny."
However, I hold this to be an ordinary labor dispute under the Act. I construe
their actions as simply tying up the vessels and quitting because their manifesto
was not favorably acted upon, and because they were unwilling to take their vessels
back upstream to the Company's port at Sheffield, Alabama.
The other instance of alleged police interference occurred when Nestor went down
to pick up the tugboats and return them to Sheffield. This occurred in the early
morning hours of June 5 between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, although there
is testimony that it may have been as early as 1 a. m. It is admitted that Mrs.
Thomas gave the men permission to remain on the boats and use their quarters
after paying them off, but when Nestor came down he was accompanied by a couple
of State troopers. It is also admitted that neither on this occasion nor the previous
one did these peace officers say or do anything-they merely were present. Certainly
there was no threat of arrest or imprisonment. Nestor declared his intention to put
the boats under power, and with new, but short-handed crews, return them to their
home port. At that time he gave the men 20 minutes to collect their gear and
dunnage and to leave the vessels. The men's time was up at midnight of June 4,
therefore he was within his rights in revoking the permission given by Mrs. Thomas
in order to get under way and accomplish his own mission. Nestor merely carried
out orders.
Nestor's recital of his visit to the boats, in part, reads:
Q. Did you then visit the boats?
A. Yes, sir, I did. I called for police protection. I love life too well to
share it with the river bottom, and I had twelve years in the Navy, and I
thought I might need a little protection . . . I had the services of two Kentucky
State Policemen and I had the services of the Smiley boat guard, and I went
to the Fleet and got on the boat. I was met by members of both the Norris
and the Arroco and asked that they leave as I had orders from the office to
take both boats to Sheffield.
Q. How did the members of the crew that were aboard at that time leave?
A. They left, some of them left on the Smiley and there was a few that
remained and then got off the boat as requested and sat up on the barges that
was in the fleet.
Q. What happened to the police officers?
A. The police officers left with them on the boat-
Q. Did you see the police officers there in your presence attempt to make
any arrests or threaten to arrest or embarrass any members of the crew?
A. Definitely not. I think the crew approached them and talked to them
rather than the officer approaching anyone else.
Q. Did you individually or by direction evict any of your employees from
their living quarters on the boats?
A. Not employees, sir, the men as I take it had quit, they had received their
checks, and I asked them to leave the premises of our company's property.
ARROW TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 129
Thus , falls the charge of evicting the employees from their living quarters upon
Respondent 's towboats . I find no unfair labor practice in this action.
M. The "shortwave" radio evidence
Early in the trial the question of the reception and admissibility of radio conversa-
tions was presented . All of the tugboats of the Company were equipped to send
and receive "ship to shore" and "ship to ship " radio messages . This equipment,
apparently , was similar to standard shortwave instruments used on police and military
vehicles, perhaps with an average communicating radius of 30 miles. It was used,
on a frequency band assigned by the Federal Communications Commission, to
alert the lock tenders at the dams and to converse with sister ships and shore sta-
tions. Certainly the messages were interstate , being transmitted from a vessel engaged
in interstate commerce and capable of reception on shore of the various States
bordering the rivers traversed . Therefore sections 153 et al. of the Fexjeral Com-
munications Act were applicable to use of this equipment.
First in the trial , the question of admissibility of such evidence was raised when
Captain Bloodworth testified that while he "was in the vicinity of Brookport Bridge
and someone on the Norris talked to me on the radio and they were broke down.
Counsel Shelbourne objected on the grounds that it was hearsay . Captain
Bloodworth could not identify who spoke from the Norris, nor did he state the
time. The question again arose when Mrs. Thomas started her testimony by fixing
the time of the Arroco and Norris coming into Paducah on the night of June 3. She
testified:
This was some time before I went to bed , which I think was around 9:00
o'clock . I had my radio on , short wave radio on listening for my son on his
boat , to get his position and then after the river report was given and the boys
reported , which our boys report at that time, I heard them talking. One of
the boats , I couldn't tell you who it was said , "Have you heard from ... this
letter . . . that we sent to Sheffield . . .
Counsel Naimark objected to the identity of "they" and "who" were talking, and
further contended that a proper foundation had not been laid for introduction of this
type of evidence as necessary in a telephone conversation . Counsel Shelbourne, in
qualifying her, cited her official position , her experience of several years, the custom
and practice of these boats to intercommunicate , that she heard the Arroco contact
the Norris or vice versa , that the formula of the Federal Communications Com-
mission in their regulations of these boats , and that authorized ships personnel only
were allowed to use the vessel 's transmitter . This issue being a matter of first
impression with this Trial Examiner , and incidentally the only one of its particular
kind to be judicially resolved, I admitted the evidence and withheld my definitive
ruling until writing this report . I hold the evidence admissible under the Rules of
Federal Procedure and cite as sustaining authority Rule 90 , Art. 5 et seq. of Wig-
more's Code of Evidence 2nd Ed.'
Considerable evidence appears in the record , mostly testimony by Leslie, as to
whether or not the radio on the Norris was out of commission or was inoperable, be-
tween 7 and 9 o 'clock p . in., at the time Mrs. Thomas stated she heard the Arroco and
Norris communicating with each other . The only purpose this fact would serve, if
believed , which I do not, would be to discredit Mrs. Thomas , or would be to show
that there was a cabal which agreed to a rendezvous at Paducah. That is not ma-
terial to my decision . The facts are that the crews did meet , decided upon, and
embarked upon an unjustified course of conduct in tying the vessels up and refusing
to move them , and quit their employment when their scheme failed.
2 Wigmore 's Code of Evidence 2nd Ed. Testimonial Evidence in rule 90, art. 5. Personal
observation required ; Exceptions provides that a witness is not qualified whose means of
knowledge was substantially not the personal observation of his own senses, but the hearsay
assertions of others , except as follows: Par . ( g) a person who, having listened on the
telephone , the dictograph , or the radio -receiver , testifies ( 1) to the identity of the speaker
though not recognizing the voice , ( 2) or to the tenor of the utterances though transmitted
by a third person. ( Sec. 622 ) Rule 191, sec. 2095 provides for the authentication of a
radio message under art . 4. Radio-Broadcast Message as follows : When an utterance on
a radio-receiving instrumgnt purports to have been made by a particular person at a par-
ticular broadcasting station, it is sufficiently authenticated by testimony , that the receiv-
ing instrument was adjusted to the wave length of the particular station Par . ( a) further
provides that the sender 's identity may be evidenced ( 1) by the speaker naming of the
station, and his name or his principals , and (2 ) by testimony to its wave length as stated
in any publication commonly used.
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N. Company knowledge of the Union
The final matter to be considered in this case involves the company knowledge
of the Union and its concern. Mr. T. M. Davidson, port adjutant, National Mari-
time Union of America, CIO, was called as a witness for the General Counsel.
Mr. Davidson testified that on June 4 he had a telephone conversation with Mr. King
and after introducing himself he advised King that he had been asked by this group
of people to represent them in their labor negotiations but did not recall any other
particulars of that conversation. The evidence indicates that this conversation oc-
curred between 10 and 12 o'clock that morning. Also he visited and talked at some
length with Mrs. Thomas. Without detailing the evidence, which in the main is
not contradicted, I find that the Company had knowledge of the Union's interest in
the case, but this knowledge was "after the fact," in other words, after the crews had
made their decision and quit their employment. There is no showing of the Com-
pany refusing to reinstate its employees because of their membership in, sympathy
for, and activities in behalf of the Union, nor of its threatening to tie up Respond-
ent's towboats and not engage in transportation of commodities by river for hire as a
contract and common carrier if the Union became the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees for the purpose of discouraging engagements in con-
certed activities and discouraging membership in, sympathy for, and activity in be-
half of the Union. Neither did Respondent discharge the employees listed in the
complaint because of their engagement in and concerted activity and because of
their membership in and activity in behalf of the Union, nor refuse to reinstate said
employees because of such membership and activity in violation of the Act.
In conclusion, I subscribe to Counsel Naimark's point:
General Counsel is aware of the fact that this case here presents a clear question
of credibility. The Examiner has a difficult problem in determining whether
or not the General Counsel's witnesses are telling the truth or whether Respond-
ent's witnesses are telling the truth.
The resolution of this overall question, though difficult to winnow the chaff from
the wheat, to separate the truth from the untruth, is simple to state-the truth is
with the Respondent's witnesses.
Accordingly, I will recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Arrow Transportation Company and Tennessee Valley Sand and Gravel Com-
pany is and, at all times relevant herein , was engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent has not engaged in and is not engaging in any unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the Act.
3. National Maritime Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
SOLAR AIRCRAFT COMPANY and LOCAL No. 52, UNITED TOOL AND DIE
MAKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITI-I THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT
UNION COUNCIL. Case No. 18-CA -507. July 9, 1954
Decision and Order
On February 15, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth i the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Union filed exceptions to the Inter-
109 NLRB No. 22.