Bender Playground Equipment, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1561 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. 1561
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Re-
gional Director for the Region in which this case was heard for the
purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the
circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
BENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. and LODGE # 79, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC--543.
Feb'uary 5, 1952
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Upon a petition duly filed and pursuant to a stipulation for certifi-
cation upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was held on
July 20, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region. Upon the conclusion of the elec-
tion, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with
the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally reflected that,
of approximately 83 eligible voters, 83 cast ballots, of which 57 were for
the Petitioner, 21 were against the Petitioner, and 5 were challenged.
On July 23, 1951, the Employer filed timely objections to the con-
duct of the election, alleging (1) that the Petitioner, or its members,
or persons acting in its behalf, perpetrated acts of physical violence
for the purpose of forcing votes for the Petitioner; and (2) that, in
order to coerce and intimidate the employees in the exercise of their
voting rights, threats were made by the Petitioner that it would cause
the plant of the Employer to be closed in the event the Petitioner
lost the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, the Regional Director investigated the matters raised by the
objections and, on August 16, 1951, issued and duly served on the par-
ties his report on objections.
The Regional Director found that there was no evidence which
indicated in any way that the alleged acts set forth above actually
took place or were in any way attempted or fostered by the Petitioner,
and concluded that the objections did not raise substantial and ma-
terial issues with respect to the conduct or the results of the election.
He therefore recommended that the objections be overruled and that
the Petitioner be certified as the collective bargaining representative
of employees in the agreed appropriate unit. On August 23, 1951,
the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's re-
port on objections.
97 NLRB No. 241.
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 13, 1951, the Board ,l having considered the Regional
Director's report and the exceptions thereto, found that the exceptions
raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of
the election, and ordered a hearing on the issues. It directed the
hearing officer to prepare and cause to be served on the parties a report
containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact,
and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the
objections.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 4, 1951, before
Richard C. Keenan, hearing officer. All parties appeared and par-
ticipated. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the' hearing
officer and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On November 23, 1951, the hearing officer issued his report contain-
ing findings of fact and recommendations to the Board, a copy of
which is attached hereto. The hearing officer found that, for reasons
set forth in his report, certain statements urged as a basis for the
objections in fact were not made; that the strike activities of the Peti-
tioner and its agents, with the exception of the threat of loss of em-
ployment implied in the statements that union membership would in
the future be a necessary condition of employment, were not such as
reasonably to affect the outcome of the election; and that any coercive
effect of these statements relative to union membership as a condition
of employment made by the Petitioner's agents were effectively re-
moved by the Employer's own assurances that, except on terms per-
initted by the Act, union membership or nonunion membership would
not affect their employment status. The hearing officer recommended
that the objections be dismissed and that the Petitioner be certified as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the agreed appropriate
unit.
On December 3, 1951, the Employer filed timely exceptions and a
supporting brief. The Board, having considered the hearing officer's
report, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and its supporting brief,
andI the entire record in this case, hereby overrules the Employer's
exceptions and adopts the hearing officer's findings, which are amply
supported by the record, and his recommendations with respect to
certification. We believe that the statements found to have been made
by the Petitioner before the election were not such as would under
the circumstances improperly interfere with the employees' exercise
of a free choice of a bargaining representative at the polls. More-
over, any coercive element which may have been contained in some
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
BENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. 1563
of the statements was effectively dissipated by speeches 2 of the Em-
ployer's president on July 6 and 20.3
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Lodge #79, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
3. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's play-
ground equipment plant at Shreveport, Louisiana, including the head
welder, but excluding all office and clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors.
Because the tally shows that the Petitioner has secured a majority
of the valid votes east by employees in the appropriate unit and that
the challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election, we
shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all employees in the agreed appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Lodge #79, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuliders and Helpers of America, A. F. L.,
has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the
unit herein found appropriate, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative- of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
Hearing Officer 's Report Containing Findings of Fact and Recommendations
to the Board
Preliminary Statement
On June 11, 1951, Lodge #79, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Union, filed
' Pertinent portions of the Employer 's statements to- its employees are as follows :
Speech of July 6: ". . . You will see from that notice (posted in the plant) that
you do not have to belong to this union or any other union to work here . . Speech
of July 20 , made on the morning of the election : "I want to repeat that you know that
you can not make a mistake by voting against the union . "
8 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 91 NLRB 955 ; Radio Corporation of America
(Victor Division), 90 NLRB 1989, 1997 ; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, 89 NLRB 943,, The
Fairbanks Company, 81 NLRB 864.
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a petition seeking to represent all maintenance and production employees and
truck drivers of Bender Playground Equipment, Inc., herein called the Com-
pany. On July 5, 1951, the parties executed a stipulation for certification on
consent election in the production and maintenance unit, calling for an election
on July 20, 1951' The election was held pursuant to the agreement.
Out of approximately 53 eligible employees, 57 votes were cast for the Union
and 21 against. The Company filed objections, which are set forth in the
Regional Director's report on objections, issued August 16, 1951, duly served
on that date on all parties. The report recommended that the objections be
overruled. Exceptions to adverse findings and to the recommendations of the
Regional Director were filed by the Company on August 23, 1951. After due
consideration the Board, on September 13, 1951, issued its order directing hear-
ing and issuance of a report to be served upon the parties. Notice of hearing
was issued and served upon all parties, and the undersigned was duly designated
as hearing officer by the Regional Director. Hearing was had before the under-
signed on October 4, 1951.2
General Statement
Although the record is, for the most part. silent as to the events occurring
prior to June 12, 1951, it does appear that prior to that date the Union had
conducted an organizational campaign. On that date the employees represented
by the Union went on strike It appears the strike was from the outset effective,
causing a complete cessation of operations by the Company.' On July 6, 1951,
coincidentally with the execution of the stipulation for consent election and the
settlement agreement, the strike was terminated. The Union continued to hold
meetings and engage in other organizational efforts during the course of the
strike and during the period between the end of the strike and the election. A
company representative, in prepared speeches, on July 6 and July 20, the day
of the election, expressed the Company's opposition to the Union and'the Com-
pany's desire that the employees vote against the Union.
With one possible exception to be hereinafter discussed, there is no evidence
but that the strike was conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner Although
there is testimony that large numbers of employees, at times exceeding 100,
assembled "on the hill", in the vicinity of the plant, there is no evidence that
there was any mass picketing. An incident of "circle" picketing engaged in
by some 9 to 20 employees will be hereinafter discussed.
Findings
For the most part, the nature of the evidence and the manner of its pres-
entation makes desirable a witness-by-witness treatment. It follows.
Burks Morris
Burks Morris testified, on direct examination, that on the morning of the
strike he was accosted by Robert G. Brumley, one of the welders employed
by the Company, and was asked whether he had signed his union card yet
The parties, on July 6, 1951, executed a settlement agreement remedying an 8 (a) (1)
and (3) charge.
All of the documents referred to above form a part of the exhibits in this matter.
Litigation of the issues involved in the strike were not permitted by the undersigned
One of the employees testified that the employees were on strike because "they laid off
some men, then there was some fights there, then there was some abuse in there, and fric-
tion, the best I can tell you." -
BENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. 1565
and informed that "nobody was going to work, says we have struck."' Morris
testified that later that morning Charles Trepagnier, the international repre-
sentative of the Union, in response to a question from one James Kelley, a
striking employee, as to what should be done in the event others tried to
take the strikers' jobs, gave the following response : "You all can get some alley
apples." Morris testified that Kelley asked substantially the same question and
received substantially the same answer in a union meeting the Thursday before
the election. He later changed his testimony to have someone other than Kelley
ask the question. Morris further testified, on direct examination, that a welder
named Vess told him that he had better "go vote for the Union," but later changed
his testimony to show that Vess had asked him how he was going to vote.
This incident is alleged to have occurred on Tuesday morning before the election,
after the strike was terminated. Morris testified that Jody Jefferson, another
employee, one Monday morning before the election said to him, "Shrimp, you
had better go vote for the union because if the union wins the election all
that voted against the union would be laid off." A few days before the
election, Morris testified, Brumley told him that if the Union were to lose the
election, "we are going to close the plant down, the plant ain't going to open
up any more." Brumley is also alleged to have interrogated Morris in a manner
similar to that attributed to Vess.
Morris did not impress the undersigned as a wholly credible witness. He
was confused as to the time and place of alleged occurrences and did not
demean himself as one convinced of the truth of his own utterances. Under
cross-examination Morris fixed the Jefferson incident as occurring after the
election. In view of the conflict it cannot be found that the statement was
made, or if made, made before the election. Brumley and Trepagnier both
denied the statements attributed to them. Brumley and Trepagnier testified
in a straightforward manner and their demeanor on the stand and the nature
(f their testimony convinced the undersigned that they were truthful witnesses.
Brumley's denial of the threat that the plant would be closed by strike action
allegedly made shortly before the election and Trepagnier's denial of the "alley
apples" incident are credited.
Although the state of the record is not completely satisfactory as to this
point, the undersigned credits Morris in his statement that sometime before the
election Vess solicited his vote and interrogated him as to his union member-
ship. The undersigned further finds that Morris was solicited for membership
;.id informed of the strike by Brumley on June 12 in the manner in which
he testified.
May Etta Evans and Christine Evans
May Etta Evans testified that on the morning of the strike she alighted
from an automobile on her way to work as follows :
When I started across the street, Mr. Trepagnier and some of the
welders stopped me, said there was a strike, we couldn't go any further
so I stopped . . . one of the welders said if I wanted to work down
there I had to join the union, because it was going to be completely union
shop . . . We got out and walked on over, held their hand out and
said we couldn't go any further.
Q. Who held their hand out?
A. Mr. Trepagnier.
* The connection with the Union of Brumley and the other individuals whose names will
appear from time to time will be separately treated.
986209-52-vol 97-100
11
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon alighting from a streetcar, Christine Evans said the following happened.
The union man was there and others and they stopped us, said a strike
was on.
Q. Who is the man you are talking about?
A. Mr. Trepagnier . . .
t s s
.#
a s
I did hear some of the welders say that if you didn't join a union we
wouldn't be able to work down there at Bender's.
The two Evanses impressed the undersigned as attempting to testify according
to the best of their recollection. The undenied and credible statement that _
they were accosted on the morning of the strike by Brumley and other welders
is credited. However, it is not found that Trepagnier was among those who
accosted the two women. Trepagnier testified that he did not arrive at the scene
of the strike until about noon on its first day. His recollection of the circum-
stances seems to be clear and his explanation reasonable. This finding is made
although other witnesses, V.ess and Cotton, alluded to Trepagnier's presence on
the picket line rather early on the first day of the strike. In this connection it
is to be noted that Henry Frazier, a witness called by the Company, who impressed
the undersigned as an alert and truthful witness with a good memory, was
examined at some length on this subject. Frazier, though pressed on this point in
direct examination, does not recall Trepagnier being present in the early
morning, but saw him "later on, up in the day "
Miles Jackson
On the morning of the strike Jackson testified that he was accosted by several
of the striking welders who informed him that he could not enter the plant
Jackson is a foreman and admitted supervisor. The incident is alleged to have
taken place in the sight but not the hearing of many employees assembled on
the hill. It is apparently the Company's contention that by leavirlg the place
of assembly, approaching Jackson who was evidently seeking admission into the
plant, and by causing Jackson to turn and depart, the action of the striking
welders had a coercive effect upon the other. employees. A few days later
Jackson again sought entrance to the plant and was at first denied passage and
then granted passage by Trepagnier for a limited period.
Lawrence Johnson
Lawrence Johnson, employee, testified that on the morning of the election at
approximately 9: 30 he saw from three to five employees assembled near a water-
cooler and in passing heard Robert Brumley, a welder employed by the Company,
say that if the Union won the election employees would get higher wages and
if they lost there would be another strike. Brumley denies the incident. John-
son is uncorroborated and can supply the names of none of the other employees
except Brumley. Brumley's denial is credited. In any event it would be difficult
to see how a portion of an alleged conversation out of context with the rest
could be properly evaluated
Jake Mills
Mills was placed on the stand by the Company and testified specifically only
as to an incident occurring at a union meeting in which he was berated by
Trepagnier as being "lower than a snake's belly," for allegedly acting as an
5 Gulfport Transport Company, 84 NLRB 613.
BENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. 1567
informer. Mills was cross-examined at length and because of his poor recollec=
tion, his evasive answers, his conflicting testimony and his, demeanor, impressed
the undersigned as a wholly unreliable witness. Trepagnier, however, admits
that the incident took place but fixed the date of the meeting as August 2, 1951,
after the election. Trepagnier is supported by a roster of the meeting for that
date signed by Mills. Mills, himself, under questioning by the undersigned,
fixed the time of the meeting as after the employees had gone back to work and
then, when previous conflicting testimony was called to his attention, went back
to his original statement that the incident had occurred during the strike. Th@'
undersigned finds that the incident occurred after the election and, therefore,,
has no relevance to these proceedings. -
Sanford Cotton
Cotton is a supervisory employee. Cotton testified that-on the morning of
the strike the pickets would not let him through. They told him "they had
a strike on, couldn't get through, wouldn't be anybody there." He later in the
course of the strike obtained permission to go to the office to transact some
business and upon coming out of the plant was reprimanded by Trepagnier
for loading a slide into the automobile of a customer who had called at the
plant for the equipment.
Charles S. Allison
Allison testified that on the moiuing of the election, shortly before the election,
at a place approximately 50 yards from the election booth, a fight occurred
between a former employee named Baldree and a welder, employed by the
Company, named Crofford. The fight occurred shortly after Baldree told Crof-
ford "he wasn't any better than a nigger." Company counsel, by his questions,
indicated a contention that the dispute was a continuation of a discussion
raised by Baldree at a union meeting the night before relative to Negroes
voting However, the record reveals only that Baldree made a speech at the
union meeting the night before and the content of the speech is not before
us. The fight was witnessed by approximately four employees. The under-
signed finds that the incident in question, from the evidence before him, could not
have affected the outcome of the election.
Henry Frazier
Henry Frazier testified credibly that on June 12, the morning of the strike,
he was told by a welder employed by the Company, named Ponder, that "we
couldn't go to work, there was a strike on."_ Frazier also testified and his
testimony is undenied that 4 or 5 days before the election Jody Jefferson told
him "if you all don't vote for the Union, we are going to put on another strike
and you won't have any job if you don't vote for the union ; it will be a strike
coming on and you won't have a job."
"Circle" Picketing
One day during the second week of the strike a customer of the Company
called for some merchandise which had been ordered prior to the strike. The
customer was a Mrs Marsiglia The strikers became aware of her call and in-
creased the number of pickets at the plant entrance until they numbered from 9 to
20. The increased number of pickets began to walk very rapidly in an oval before
the door of the plant. The oval was about 10 feet long and about 5 feet wide.
1568 bECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The customers were informed by Trepagnier that the merchandise could not
be removed . The customer left without the merchandise . A detective sum-
moned by the Company appeared on the scene . There was no recurrence
of "circle" picketing.
The Strike Committee
On June 13 a strike committee of five white and five colored employees was
appointed by Trepagnier . They were Brumley , Warren , Roberts, Ponder , Guess,
Frazier , Kennedy, Jody Jameson , Jody Jefferson , and Taylor . Jameson was
later replaced by Alf Jackson . The chief function of the committee was to serve
as picket line captains and to see that Trepagnier 's orders as to strike activity
were carried out. The undersigned finds that all members of this committee
were agents of the Union during the course of the strike and that the Union
was responsible for their picket line and other strike activities . The under-
signed further finds that the committee was disbanded upon the conclusion of
the strike July 6, 1951.
Union Stesoards
The undersigned finds that Brumley and Jody Jefferson were elected stewards
,of the Union on July 26 , 1951 , and as such were from that date forward agents
of the Union. In that they were the only elected representatives of the em-
ployees handling union affairs at that time , the undersigned finds their scope
of authority to be broad . On this same date Trepagnier appointed an undis-
closed number of committeemen to assist the steward . Vess is the only named
committeeman.
The Speeches
Tne undersigned finds that the speeches, copies of which have been intro-
du-,:ed as Board 's Exhibits 2-A and 2-B, were made on July 9 and July 20
respectively by the Company's president and that substantially all employees
heard the speeches.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
In summary the undersigned finds that of the incidents placed in issue by
the parties the following occurred :
(1) Morris was , on June 12, 1951, informed of the strike and told that
the plant would not work.
(2) The two Evanses were stopped at the picket lines by strike committee-
men and informed by one of the welders that further employment at the plant
would be conditioned on union membership.
(3) Frazier was informed on the morning of June 12 by Ponder that the
plant was on strike and that he could not work.
(4) Foremen Cotton and Jackson were told that they could not pass the picket
line but were passed upon specific requests.
(5) The Union resorted to "circle" picketing during the strike to prevent an
outsider from removing merchandise from the plant.
(6) Four or five days before the election Frazier was told by Jody Jefferson
that if the Union did not win another strike would be called.
(7) A fight between a former employee and a welder employed by the Company
occurred on the morning of the election for causes the nature of which is not
clear.
Although the exact status of Brumley and Ponder on the morning the strike
began is not clear from the entire record , it appears that they were from its in-
BENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. 1569
ception among the leaders of the strike. They were the next day appointed on
a strike committee in charge of the strike. The Union does not deny responsi-
bility for the strike. The undersigned, therefore, concludes that the Union was
responsible for the strike activities of Ponder and Brumley from the morning
of June 12 until July 6 when the strike ended and their committee was disbanded.
Although Jody Jefferson was a member of the strike committee and later
became a shop steward of the Union, the undersigned finds that between July 6
and July 26 the Union was not bound by actions of Jody Jefferson to a greater
extent than it would be by actions of any other active member.
With the exception of the threat of loss of employment implied in the state-
ments to the Evanses that union membership would in the future be necessary
as a condition of employment, the undersigned finds that the strike activities
of the Union and its agents were not such as to, under any circumstances, be
reasonably calculated to affect the outcome of the election. The activities of- the
pickets in informing employees of the existence of the strike and in making the
strike effective were normal noncoercive practices which have not met with the
disapproval of the Board. The pickets succeeded, in a nonviolent and non-
coercive manner, in limiting access to the plant of certain supervisory employees.
This is an end desired by most strikers and has not met in the past with the
disapproval of the Board. Circle picketing directed at employees seeking en-
trance to the plant might well be found coercive and under certain circumstances
to affect the outcome of a subsequent election. In this instance the circle picket-
ing was in furtherance of the primary boycott of the Company's premises and
was directed only at a customer. Apart from the other considerations herein-
after detailed the undersigned does not find that the incident of circle picketing
could be said to have been reasonably calculated to affect the outcome of the
election.
In any event the undersigned concludes that none of the activities connected
with the strike which began on June 12 and ended on July 6 can be said to have
had a coercive effect upon the election which took place on July 20. -Between
the date of the election and the ending of the strike several events intervened.
The strike itself was settled. An unfair labor practice charge was settled con-
currently with the agreement for election and required the posting of a notice
in a form which clearly assured employees that their membership or nonmember-
ship in the Union except under the terms permitted by the Act could not affect
their employment status. The Employer in speeches made on July 6 and July 20
clearly quashed any rumors to the effect that future employment would in any
way be conditioned upon union membership or vote for the Union in the election.
These activities on the part of the Employer serve to remove any coercive effect
of any threats, implied or direct, of loss of employment made during the strike .6
Further, conduct at a time when the parties had not yet agreed to the election
and prior to settlement of the dispute giving rise to the strike occurring from
5 to 2 weeks before the election is too remote to have had a coercive effect upon
the outcome of the election.? The events occurring after the strike are confined
to Morris. Interrogation of him as to his union affiliation and voting intentions,
even if made by an agent of the Union, could have no coercive effect. A labor
organization seeking to organize a plant does not stand in the same position as
an employer with full power over employees' employment tenure. Nor was
assertion that another.strike would occur in the event that the election was lost
9 The Fairbanks Company, 81 NLRB 864.
4 Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, 86 NLRB 662 ; Laclede Gas Light Company, 80 NLRB
839; NAPA New York Warehouse,. Inc., 75 NLRB 1269; Eroder-Reubel Company, Inc.,
72 NLRB 240.
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coercive. Except for the proscriptions of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act there
is no limitations upon a peaceful primary strike for recognition and lawful picket-
ing incident thereto. The announcement, even if made by a union representative,
that the Union would continue to exert economic pressure in the event of defeat
at the polls cannot be unlawful if the intended economic pressure itself is
lawful.
Even were it to be found that Jefferson informed Morris that he would be
laid off if he did not vote in favor of the Union the election should stand. When
viewed in the light of the Company's assurances made on July 6 and on the day of
the election it is difficult to envisage a coercive effect. The Union was cer-
tainly not in a position to carry out this threat, and the record reveals that
employees were clearly informed of this. In any event Jefferson was not at
this time connected with the Union other than as an active member and this fact
must be weighed in considering any possible coercive effect of his remarks!
The undersigned concludes that none of the remarks addressed to Morris can
be said to have been reasonably calculated to have affected the results of the
election. The undersigned concludes that there is no evidence of conduct on
the part of the Union or its agents affecting the results of the election so as to
warrant its being set aside and, therefore, it is recommended that the objections
be dismissed and the Union certified as the representative of the majority
of-the employees of the Company in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate.
MalUUnckrodt Chemical Company, supra.
A. O. SMrru CORPORATION and LOCAL 4 , MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1301. Feb-
ruary 6,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
' ' International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, CIO, and American Federation of Labor were permitted to Intervene.
97 NLRB No. 245.