Bitwell Trailer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vincent J. Miller and Ferdinand Leardi d /b/a Biltwell Trailer
Company and Local 596, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent . Case No. I-CA-1564. December 19, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 31, 1958, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent has 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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.2 The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with certain additions 3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Vincent J.
Miller and Ferdinand Leardi d/b/a Biltwell Trailer Company, its
officers; agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 596, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Independent, as exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit described in the Intermediate Report.
'The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record, exceptions , and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
a We find no merit in the Respondent 's contention that the Trial Examiner at the hear-
ing and in the Intermediate Report demonstrated bias and prejudice against the Respond-
ent. See Linton-Summit Coal Company, Inc ., 120 NLRB 346 , footnote 2.
3 The Respondent contends in challenging the Union's majority that ( 1) the six dis-
chargees were temporary employees , and (2 ) three other individuals-Frank Alkins,
Elwood Richards , and Peter Tyre]-were supervisors as defined in the Act. As to (1),
there is no evidence in the record to establish that the dischargees were temporary rather
than permanent employees . As to ( 2), we find it unnecessary to pass upon the super-
visory status of Alkins , Richards , and Tyrel because it is clear from the record that the
Union represented a sufficient number of other individuals to constitute an employee
majority.
122 NLRB No. 70.
BILTWELL TRAILER COMPANY 607
(b) Discouraging membership in Local 596 or in any other labor
organization of their employees by discharging or refusing to rein-
state or in any other manner discriminating against employees in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership
and in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Local 596 or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 596 as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and
embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer the discharged employees immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth in the section in the Intermediate Report
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due and the
right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at Respondent's premises in Philadelphia, Pa., copies
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Ap-
pendix A."4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region, shall,, after being duly signed by
Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
4 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed by Local 596, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inde-
pendent,' the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
complaint dated March 7, 1958, against Vincent J. Miller and Ferdinand Leardi
d/b/a Biltwell Trailer Company, herein collectively called Respondent, alleging
that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and charges were duly served upon Respondent, in
response to which Respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices
alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 1 and 2, 1958, in Philadelphia,
Pa., before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at
the hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues; they were also given
opportunity for oral argument at the close of the hearing and to file briefs as well.
Upon the entire record in this case, and upon observation of the demeanor of
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a partnership engaged in the manufacture of boat trailers in
Philadelphia, Pa. In 1957, Respondent's out-of-State sales exceeded $50,000. I
find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 596, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Independent, is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
The General Counsel alleges and I find that all employees at Respondent's
Philadelphia place of business, including drivers, but excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act. There were 12 employees in this unit on May 10, 1958.2
Teamsters Joint Council No. 53, herein called the Joint Council, conducted an
organizing drive in the spring of 1957. Joseph Sanders, a member of Local 596,
is an organizer for the Joint Council's organizing committee; at Sanders' solicita-
tion, 9 of Respondent's 12 employees signed cards on or about May 7, 1957,
reading as follows:
'The original charge was filed by this organization before its disaffiliation from the
AFI CTO. See Louisiana Creamery, Iac., 120 NLRB 170.
2 1 find that Frank Alkins, Elwood Richards, and Peter Tyrel were supervisors at that
time within the meaning of the Act. Alkins was in charge of welding operations on the
day shift, Tyrel had charge of assembly operations, and Richards was in sole charge of
the night shift. These foremen had authority to recommend hire and fire of employees.
BILTWELL TRAILER COMPANY 609
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO. 53
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
I, the undersigned, hereby make application for the membership in the
I. B. T. C. W. and H. of A., and I hereby designate the Teamsters Joint Coun-
cil No. 53 Organizing Committee as my exclusive representative for the purpose
of collective bargaining with my Employer with respect to wages, hours, and
working conditions. 1 hereby authorize the said Organizing Committee in
its discretion to transfer my membership to any Local Union affiliated with
the I. B. T. C. W. and H. of A.
On Friday morning, May 10, 1957, Respondent Miller received the following
May 8 letter from Louis Bertucci, president of Local 596:
LOCAL 596, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, EASTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, AND
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO. 53, 1174 NORTH THIRD STREET,
PHILADELPHIA 23, PENNSYLVANIA, LOUIS BERTUCCI, PRESIDENT
BILT-WELL TRAILER CO.
8406 Lyons Ave.
Phila., Penna.
GENTLEMEN: This is to advise you that the Garage Parking and Service
Station Employee's Union Local 596 affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
A.F. of L. represents a majority of your employees and we wish to sit down
at your earliest convenience to negotiate a Contract in regards to wages,
hours and working conditions.
Please call this office within the next three days to set a time and place
for this meeting.
Miller called Bertucci the same morning he received this letter and Bertucci
said he would call back shortly. Bertucci did not do so, whereupon after an in-
terval of approximately 1 hour, Miller testified that he convened his employees
in the shop and read Bertucci's letter to them. Miller testified that he then asked
the men "if this was their wishes" and that he inquired "which ones joined the
Union" and "which ones did not join the Union." Nine of the twelve employees
informed Miller that they had joined the Union.3 The three employees who
advised Miller that they had not joined the Union were Hubert Simmons, Charles
Gieder, and Benjamin Sokowski.
Miller4 approached employee William J. Thomas during that day and he asked
whether Thomas had joined the Union. Thomas said he had, whereupon Miller
said, according to Thomas' credible testimony, "You know that will cost you your
job." When Miller handed Thomas his final check at the end of that day, Miller
told Thomas, "See if the Union can get you a job making that much. And get
out and don't come back no more." Miller made a similar inquiry of employee
Samson Logan that day, according to Logan's credible testimony. Logan told
Miller he had joined the Union, whereupon Miller said he would lay off Logan
temporarily until he, Miller, "gets this Union matter straightened out." Upon
Miller's inquiry, also that same day, and after first telling Miller that he had not
joined the Union, employee DeWitt Jones informed Miller that he had done so.
Miller then told Jones, according to Jones' credible testimony, that "at 5:30, you're
fired." Jones replied that "if I am fired at 5:30, I might as well be fired now,
because I ain't going to do no work." Miller told Jones to get out and to return
for his money at 5:30. When Jones returned, Miller asked him, "How do you
want your pay, physically or mentally?"
That same day, May 10, Miller terminated six of the employees who had in-
formed him of their union membership and the dischargees thereupon advised
Union Organizer Sanders to this effect. On Monday, May 13, the Union estab-
lished and maintained a picket line at Respondent's plant and continued such
activity for about 6 weeks.5 On various occasions during the course of the
picketing, Miller told Sanders and another union organizer, Edward Carroll, that
'The cards of eight of these nine were received in evidence.
4I do not credit Miller's general denial that he had individual conversations with
employees concerning the Union.
5 Respondent Miller addressed vulgar. remarks with most offensive gestures to the
pickets on the first day; It serves no purpose to recite such obscenities here.
505395-59-vol. 122 40
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would move from Philadelphia before recognizing and negotiating with the
Teamsters . Miller also told employee DeWitt Jones, who was picketing at the
time, that he would close up and move from Philadelphia "before the Union
would get in " and that "this Teamsters ' Union wasn 't any good and that he didn't
want anything to do with them because they were goons ." "If it were any other
Union," Miller continued , "you might have a chance ." Miller further told Jones
that Jones would still be working for Respondent if "I [Jones ] kept my nose clean."
The original unfair labor practice charges in this matter were filed on May 14,
1957, and charged , among other things, that Respondent had discriminatorily
discharged DeWitt Jones and five other employees . Miller told Jones sometime
later that " it might be worth $50" to Jones if Jones "washed [his ] hands of this
matter," referring to the instant action. Jones told Miller to give him "$25 now
and $25 later"; Miller did not give anything to Jones. On either this or another
occasion when Miller was speaking to some of the alleged discriminatees , Miller
stated that "the most he would give us [the discriminatees ] to withdraw our state-
ments was $ 50"; the record does not disclose the full conversation on this occasion
or how the conversation arose.
B. Discrimination
The answer filed in this case asserts that the termination of the six employees
"was in the normal course of business because of cessation of orders requiring
Respondent 's productivity ." At the hearing Respondent Miller added still another
reason for the discharges by testifying that Respondent discharged all six men for
incompetency as well. In the latter connection , Miller testified that he and his
supervisors had reprimanded each of the six employees and had told them they
would be laid off if their work did not meet Respondent 's standards.
The dischargees were comparatively new employees , with seniority ranging
from 3 to 13 days as of May 10 .6 They were not engaged in skilled work.
William Thomas was under Foreman Alkins ' supervision during his 13 days with
Respondent . According to Alkins, some days Thomas ' work was satisfactory and
other days it was not . Alkins further testified that he had asked Miller to speak
to Thomas at the outset of Thomas ' employment in regard to "bouncing the
trailers up and down." Charles Gieder, a rank -and-file employee , testified that he
showed Thomas how to clean trailers . Gieder and Benjamin Sokowski , another
rank-and -file employee , testified that Thomas did not perform this job satisfactorily
and that they complained to Miller on such account . Thomas denied being
criticized about his work.
Bernard Collins began working on Wednesday , May 8, and was released May 10.
Respondent offered no specific testimony regarding Collins.
Samson Logan had been in Respondent 's employ for 7 days when he was
released. He was an assembler under Foreman Alkins. Alkins testified that he
had observed the work to be too "heavy" for Logan , and the record establishes
that Logan had so informed some of his fellow employees and told them he
"might quit " for such reason . Respondent offered no other specific testimony
regarding Logan.
Randall Carson had 6 days ' seniority . Respondent offered no specific evidence
respecting Carson except that Carson 's application for State unemployment com-
pensation states that he was unemployed for "lack of work /laid off."
DeWitt Jones and Percy Maddry each had 9 days ' seniority . The only specific
testimony adduced by Respondent regarding them was that of rank-and-file em-
ployee Sokowski to the effect that Jones and Maddry "banged up " trailers while
stacking them. Miller had told Jones during the latter 's employment , "Do more
work and less talk."
Respondent Miller testified that he hired two or three employees on Wednesday,
May 8 , and that when he did so he informed the new employees that they would
replace two employees whom he would let go. Miller testified that he did not
have any particular two employees in mind at the time and that he would not
know until Friday; he elsewhere testified that he had made arrangements by
Tuesday, May 7, to lay off a certain group of employees ; another time he testified
that it was not until Thursday , May 9, that he had made up his mind to lay off
the six alleged discriminatees . Foreman Alkins testified, on the other hand, that
he knew the week before that the new employees would be laid off, that he was
consulted "most of the time" in such connection, and that such practice was
followed as to all the alleged discriminatees in this case . Upon cross-examination,
6 The record does not establish a seniority practice.
BILTWELL TRAILER COMPANY 611
Alkins testified that he could recall being consulted concerning only one of the
six dischargees.
Respondent had as many as 15 employees ( excluding supervisors ) the week
before the discharges herein , and the record shows this to have been the employ-
ment peak . It is recalled that one of the alleged reasons for the terminations was
seasonal decline . On the other hand, Foreman Frank Alkins testified that Re-
spondent 's busiest season was from March until August, and Miller testified, as
stated above , that he hired two or three new employees the same week as the
discharges . Respondent witness Charles Gieder testified that Respondent was busy
at that particular period and the record also shows that Respondent hired other
employees in the following months.
C. Refusal to bargain
Respondent asserted at the hearing that one of its reasons for refusing to recog-
nize the Union was its belief that the Union would not honor in good faith any
agreements reached with it. Respondent Miller testified that the only reason he
did not recognize the Union as the bargaining representative was that he was
satisfied , as a result of his May 10 poll, that the Union did not represent a
majority. His testimony , in explanation , was that he had already determined to
terminate six of the men who said they were union members and that this would
have left only a minority of the remaining employees.
Conclusions
It is clear , without further discussion or recapitulation , that Respondent's re-
sponse to the Union 's request for recognition was to interrogate the employees
and then discharge a substantial number of the union members, thus seeking to
destroy the Union's majority status. By so interrogating employees in this context
and by advising employees they were being discharged and had been discharged
for reasons of union membership , Respondent has violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of the
Act; and by discharging employees because of their union membership , Respondent
has also violated Section 8 ( a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act . Harlan B. Browning et al.
d/b/a Cottage Bakers, 120 NLRB 841; Gebhardt Chili Powder Company, 12Q
NLRB 1502; E. V. Prentice Machine Works , Inc., 120 NLRB 417.
Respondent advances as a legal argument the fact that the employees had des-
ignated the Joint Council as bargaining representative and that there has been no
designation of Local 596 , the charging union herein . Respondent further contends
in effect that there was a question concerning the identity of the bargaining repre-
sentative in view of the fact that the Teamsters Joint Council had apparently been
engaging in a citywide organizational campaign with the IAM. The designation
cards signed by employees authorized the Joint Council to transfer the signatories'
membership to any Teamsters Local, and the recital of the facts herein discloses
no confusion by Respondent Miller in this connection . Indeed, Miller made it
perfectly clear that Respondent 's actions were taken because the employees were
affiliated with the Teamsters , of which affiliation his employees had advised him
at his own instance.
I conclude that Teamsters Local .596 represented a majority of Respondent's
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit on May 8 and 10, 1957, and that
Respondent did not have a good-faith doubt of such status. I further conclude
that, by attempting to destroy such statutory bargaining status, as recounted above,
Respondent has violated Section 8 ( a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act . Cottage Bakers,
Gebhardt Chili Powder, and Prentice Machine Works cases, supra.?
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices , tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
7 Respondent filed a representation petition in Case No. 4-RM-244 on May 14, 1957,
after having discharged the six employees . The Regional Director determined that further
proceedings were not warranted on such petition . Respondent's contention respecting
such petition is groundless . There also is no merit in Respondent 's contention respecting
a then contemporaneous case under Section 8 ( b)(4)(A) of the Act.
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend, among other things, that the Respondent offer the afore-
mentioned employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions8 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay resulting from the
discrimination against them, by paying each one a sum of money equal to the
amount he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings,9 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
291-294. Earnings in one quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability
for any other such period. It will also be recommended that the Respondent
make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate
checking the back pay due. F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent are of such a character
that in order to insure the employees their full rights guaranteed by the Act it
will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in their right to self-organization.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 596 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. All employees at Respondent's Philadelphia place of business, including
drivers, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since May 8, 1957, Local 596 has been and it continues to be
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above-described
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to bargain with Local 596 since May 10, 1957, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in their aforestated unit, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By discriminatorily discharging the aforementioned employees Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. By interrogating employees concerning their union membership and by stating
it was taking and had taken economic reprisal for such reason, Respondent has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, 65 NLRB 827.
O Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 444, 497-498.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against our employees
-because of membership or other activities in behalf of Local 596, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Local 596 as the exclusive
representative of all our employees, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
LOCAL 392, tNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 613
of employment , and other conditions of employment , and if an understanding
is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL reinstate and make whole the following employees for any loss of
pay suffered by them as a result of our discrimination against them:
Randall Carson Samson Logan
Bernard Collins Percy Maddry
DeWitt Jones William Thomas
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Local 596 or any
other labor organization or to refrain from such membership , except to the extent
that this right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section -8(a)(3) of
the Act.
VINCENT J. MILLER and FERDINAND LEARDI
d/b/a BILTWELL TRAILER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------- ----------------------- -------(Vincent J . Miller)
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Ferdinand Leardi)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Local 392, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Morton H. Baker and
Schenley Distillers, Inc., Party to the Contract
Schenley Distillers, Inc. and Local 392, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 9-CB-804 and 9-CA-1045. December 19, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25, 1956, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Re-
spondent Union had not engaged in certain other practices alleged
in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications
and additions.
122 NLRB No. 61.