Boge Iron and Metal Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.42
u If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT, in the future, change working conditions relating to pay for
double shifts, truck sales calls, and sales quotas without notice to and con-
sultation with Retail Clerks Union Local 1049, affiliated with Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, the bargaining representative of our auto-
mobile and truck salesmen.
WE WILL, upon request, restore such working conditions to what they were
before we made unilateral changes, to the extent we have not already done so.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above labor organiza-
tion as exclusive bargaining representative of the above employees, with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment; and WE WILL, if an understanding is reached, embody any such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to organize; to form, join, or assist a
labor organization; to bargain collectively through a bargaining agent chosen
by themselves; to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any such
activities (except to the extent that the right to refrain is limited by the lawful
enforcement of a lawful union-security requirement).
IRVINGTON MOTORS, INC.
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 Na-
tional Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No.
Market 4-6151, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Boge Iron and Metal Co., Inc . and Teamsters Union Local 795,
affiliated with The International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America . Cases No,.
17-CA-P253 and 17-RC-4181. June 22, 196 ,
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 6, 1964, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued a com-
bined Decision and Report on Objections in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
147 NLRB No. 73.
BOGE IRON AND METAL CO., INC . 577
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. He
also recommended that the election conducted in Case No. 17-RC-4181
should be set aside and a new election directed. Thereafter, the Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a supporting brief. The Respondent did not except to the Decision
or to the Report on Objections.
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 McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
The Boardhas 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 Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and Report on Objections, the General Counsel's
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Boge Iron
and Metal Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
The complaint with respect to any alleged unfair labor practices other
than those found by the Trial Examiner is hereby dismissed.
.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election of July 31, 1963, in Case No.
17-RC-4181, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that the representation
proceedings be, and they hereby are, remanded to the Regional Direc-
tor for the Seventeenth Region for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the free
choice of a bargaining representative.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board, for the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Kansas),
issued a complaint on September 26, 1963, against Boge Iron and Metal Co., Inc.,
herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that it had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat . 136, herein called
the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged
in the complaint.
756-23 r,-65-vol. 147--38
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 31, 1963, the Union lost a Board -conducted representation election in
Case No. 17-RC-4181. The Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the said election and the Board , on October 15, 1963, directed a hearing
on the Union 's objections and authorized said hearing to be consolidated with the
hearing in Case No. 17-CA-2253. On October 18, 1963, the Regional Director of
the Board issued an Order consolidating the cases and set them for hearing.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Wichita, Kansas, on November 5, 1963,
before Trial Examiner John P . von Rohr. All parties were represented by counsel
and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to file briefs . (Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from observation of the witnesses , I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Boge Iron and Metal Co., Inc. has its plant and place of businses located at Wichita,
Kansas, where it is engaged in the scrap metal business. It annually receives goods,
products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which are shipped to it from
points outside the State of Kansas; it also annually ships goods, products, and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 to points and places outside the State of Kansas.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is and has been engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Union Local 795, affiliated with The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, at times herein re-
ferred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union instituted an organizational campaign among Respondent's production
employees in about the latter part of March or early April 1963. A representation
petition was filed by it on May 28, 1963, and on July 31, 1963, pursuant to a Stipu-
lation for Certification upon Consent Election entered into by the parties on July 2,
1963, the Board conducted a representation election which the Union did not win.
The tally of ballots reflects that there were approximately 11 eligible voters and that
13 ballots were cast, of which 5 were for the Union, 6 were against the Union, and
2 were challenged.
It is undisputed that Harry Boge , Respondent's president, held private conversa-
tions with seven or eight employees during the period between the election and the
filing of the petition on May 28.1 It may be noted that Respondent's business is
principally conducted in the open and that these conversations took place in the
"yard" where the employees were at work. The testimony of the employees concern-
ing their conversations with Boge is wholly uncontroverted and may be summarized
as follows:
(1) James Patterson testified that about the middle of June, Boge told him that
business was bad, that a union was attempting to get in, and that he was not for the
Union. Patterson said that Boge thereupon asked if he was "with him" and that
he responded in the affirmative. Patterson further testified that a second conversa-
tion of similar content took place about a week later in which Boge made substan-
tially the same statements.
(2) Concerning a conversation which he had with Boge about 3 months prior to
the election, Charles Hambright testified: "Mr. Boge asked me had I heard about
the union and I told him I had and so he asked me if they did, what would I do,
and I said I would tell them no and he also said if the union came in , if we hurt
him, he would have to hurt us and if the union came in he would close the gates."
1 As noted hereinafter, one such conversation occurred some 3 months prior to the elec-
tion. Since this conversation occurred prior to the filing of the petition, it is beyond the
scope of the objections to the election aspect of this case. However, the Incident is per-
tinent to the Section 8 ( a) (1) allegations of the complaint and will be so considered.
BOGE IRON AND METAL CO., INC. 579
(3) Charles Phillips testified that about 6 weeks prior to the election Boge men-
tioned to him that "the union was really hitting around town" and asked if anyone
had talked to him about the Union. He said that he replied in the negative and that
Boge then asked what he would do if anyone approached him about the Union.
Phillips said he responded by saying, "I.wouldn't go for it." Phillips further testi-
fied that about a week later he had a second conversation with Boge. Concerning
this conversation, Phillips testified that Boge told him, "Well, I would like to pay
you $5 an hour ... but business is bad and I just can't afford to do it, and you have
been with us for a long time. If the Union would come in, I would either have
to close the gates or maybe I would have to work you two or three hours a day,
you know, and I just can't afford to pay any more."
(4) Chester Irving, a truckdriver for the Respondent, testified that in the latter
part of May, Boge asked if he had heard anything about the Union and that he
replied in the negative. Boge then stated that if matters remained as they were
he would always find something to keep him busy on a full-time basis, but that
if the Union took over "maybe he would need a driver for only 2 or 3 hours."
(5) Melvin Bobo testified that in latter June or the early part of July, Boge told
him, while discussing his work, that the employees should "try to help him"; and
that Boge stated, "if I try to hurt him, he would try to hurt me." 2
(6) Clarence Clement testified that he approached Boge about 2 days prior to
the election and asked for a raise. Boge stated that he would not give him a raise
before the election because he might be "charged," but that he would give him a
raise after the election if the Union did not get in.
There is no need to recapitulate the foregoing undenied testimony, for the various
threats which Boge made to the employees concerning their union activity, his in-
terrogations of them concerning such activity, and the promise of benefit which he
made to employee Clement are all obvious from the testimony as hereinabove set
forth. Accordingly, I find that by such conduct the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act and that it thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
The evidence further reflects that Boge held three or four meetings with the
employees during the period prior to the election. During these meetings Boge read
to the employees from prepared texts in which he expressed his general opposition
to the Union. These texts in themselves, copies of which were introduced in evi-
dence, do not contain any statements which exceed the bounds of free speech as
contemplated by Section 8(c) of the Act. However, the uncontroverted testimony
of three employee witnesses 3 discloses that at one of the meetings Boge told the
employees that they would lose two of their "rights" if the Union came in. I find
that by such threat the Respondent additionally violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act 4
B. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Melvin Bobo
The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged Melvin Bobo "because of
said employee's membership and interest in, and activity on behalf of, the Union,
and to discourage membership in the Union," and that it thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
Bobo was hired in the latter part of March 1963, and worked for the Respondent
until July 19, 1963. Like most other of the production employees, Bobo's job was
out in the yard and involved the relatively unskilled work of cutting iron with
shears. After about 2 weeks of his initial hire Bobo received a 10-cent raise at
which time, he testified, Boge told him that he was doing good work.
The incident which Respondent asserts as the precipitating reason for Bobo's ter-
mination occurred in the afternoon of Friday, July 19, 1963, at which time two
uniformed police appeared at Respondent 's premises and placed Bobo under arrest
while he was at work. Bobo was taken first to Boge's office where the police ad-
0 2In view of Bobo's discussions with other employees during the preelection period, I
,think it clear, and I find, that -Boge here had reference to, as Bobo must have clearly
understood, the employees'. union activity.
s Peterson , Phillips, and Hambright.
4 Three employees also testified concerning a talk which was given to them on the day
before the election by a person identified only as a labor relations expert . However, the
testimony of these witnesses concerning the statements made by the "expert " was in some
respects ambiguous and in other respects was not mutually corroborative . In view of this
uncertain testimony , I am reluctant to, and do not, find a violation based upon the talk
given by this unidentified individual.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vised Boge, upon his inquiry, that Bobo was being arrested for "no driving license
and loud pipes and making a false report." 5 At this point Bobo was given his pay-
check for the week and thereupon was taken away in the custody of the police.
When Bobo returned to Respondent's premises the following morning, July 20, he
found that his timecard was not in the rack. It is undisputed that when Bobo sought
out Boge, Boge told him only that he could not use him any, more and that Bobo's
employment was thereupon terminated.6
C. Additional facts; conclusions re Bobo's termination
It is the General Counsel's contention that Respondent utilized Bobo's arrest as
a pretext for his termination and in support of this contention he elicited undisputed
testimony to show that other of its employees had been arrested at Respondent's
premises but had not been discharged. Thus, in April or May 1963, a warrant
officer, not in uniform, appeared at Respondent's yard to serve a warrant upon
Charles Hambright for failing to pay a fine for being intoxicated. On this occasion,
Boge paid the fine to the warrant officer and made arrangements to deduct it from
Hambright's future paychecks. In March 1963, employee Charles Phillips was
"picked up" by a detective for failure to meet a payment for child support. When
Respondent's bookkeeper, Mrs. Miringoff, learned that Phillips could not make bond,
she made out a check for $20 which Phillips took with him. He returned to work
about an hour later. Additionally, the evidence reflects that Respondent participated
in helping three other of its employees to pay their traffic fines.?
However, it must be noted here that Bobo's arrest was not the sole reason given
by Respondent for his discharge, for at the hearing Respondent also contended that
Bobo was a poor worker and that this factor also played a part in its decision to
terminate him. In fact, Boge stated that Bobo was such a worthless employee that
he would have been terminated sooner except for the reason that, as he testified "I
was under the impression that you couldn't hire or fire anybody during this certain
period of time or he never would have lasted as long as he did . . . but when this
came up, I figured that was just the end, that's all."
While Boge did not hesitate to characterize Bobo as a "worthless" employee, he
was considerably less than specific when called upon to elaborate the deficiencies
upon which this characterization was based. Thus, while Boge testified that he
received complaints from other employees about Bobo's work, he was unable to
cite any such specific incident and testified only that "those things get around."
Other than the foregoing, Respondent called W. R. Brister, an employee who at
times worked with Bobo, to testify that Bobo fell asleep on the job while he should
have been helping in the overhaul of a crane. While the foregoing testimony was
not denied, the record reflects that Brister did not report this matter to anyone in
management.8 Accordingly, it hardly can be said that Bobo's sleeping on the job,
to which Brister testified, played any part in Respondent's decision to terminate him.
While Respondent's claim that Bobo was a poor worker has little support in the
record, it remains the burden of the General Counsel to affirmatively establish that
Bobo was discharged for reasons proscribed by the Act, i.e., because of his union
membership or activities. It is elemental, of course, that a violation of • Section
8.(a) (3) cannot be established unless there is proof that the Employer acted upon
knowledge, belief or suspicion that the terminated employee had engaged in union
activities. Such proof is entirely lacking in the instant case. Thus, the evidence-
reflects only that Bobo signed a union authorization card. while the employees had
lunch in the parking area across the street 9 and that thereafter he discussed the
Union with five or six other employees while they were working in the yard.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that either or any of these ac-
tivities came to the attention of the Respondent management. While there is thus
absent any direct evidence of company knowledge, I am also convinced that the
record in,this case does not permit the finding of an inference that Respondent
somehow acquired such knowledge by reason of the smallness of its plant. I bade
8 Testimony of Bobo. While the record is not entirely clear, it appears that Bobo had
been arrested the night before for a traffic violation and that he later made a false report
to the police that his car had been stolen.
"Bobo testified that when he asked if he was -being laid off or discharged, Boge re-
sponded only by saying that he could telephone his brother to pick him up.
7These included employees Chester Irving, LeRoy Buchanan, and Clarence Clement.
8 Statement of counsel, Tr. 114.
I On direct examination, Bobo testified that be signed the card on May 24. On cross-
examination he said he signed it in April.
BOGE IRON AND METAL CO., INC. 581
this conclusion particularly upon the fact that Bobo actually engaged in very little
union activity on or in the proximity of Respondent's premises. Thus, and as he
conceded, "it wasn't too often" that he spoke to other employees about the Union
while at work. Moreover, there is evidence that if anything the employees were
instructed to keep their activities secret, for employee James Patterson testified that
the union organizer told him not to mention to his employer the fact that he had
been contacted by a union representative.
In sum, whatever the suspicious aspects of Bobo's discharge, in the absence of
any proof that Respondent had knowledge of Bobo's union activities, I find that
the General Counsel has failed to establish by the requisite preponderance of the
evidence that Bobo was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act-10
Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.ii
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent as 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, •I will recommend that it cease and desist
,therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the. Act.
I shall also recommend that the election in Case No. 17-RC-4181 be set aside and
:a new election directed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
'2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Union Local 795, affiliated with The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section III which has been found to constitute un-
fair labor practices, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
engaged in and is engaging unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1)oftheAct.
4. The Respondent has not discriminated against employee Melvin Bobo within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
-the entire record in this case, I recommend that Respondent Boge Iron and Metal
Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
10 There is nothing in Boge's conversations with the individual employees, which have
been heretofore set forth, to indicate that he had any inkling as to which employees were
proponents of the Union.
I also note that Boge testified without contradiction that he did not learn of any union
activity at the plant until he -received a letter from the Union on May 27, 1963 , requesting
recognition. He did say, however, that he learned of some union activity going on at other
scrap metal businesses in Wichita in the spring of 1963. This latter may account for his
-conversation with Hambright, supra, about 3 months prior to the election.
111 am not particularly disturbed by the fact that Respondent condoned the arrests of
other of its employees whereas Bobo's arrest was the moving factor for his discharge.
Thus, not only does it appear that the charge against Bobo was more serious than the mis-
demeanors of the other employees, but I note also that Bobo had been in Respondent's
employ for less than 4 months whereas the other employees whose arrests had been con-
doned worked for the Respondent from 1 to 4 years.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of economic benefits or other reprisals if
they designated or attempted to • get a union selected as their collective-bargaining.
representative; or promising them economic benefits for the purpose of discouraging
their union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its.
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Wichita, Kansas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Seventeenth Region, shall, after having been duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative, be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order
what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.13
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, the Respondent notify
said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
It is also recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent engaged in any unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
12 In the event that this Recommended Order he adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of economic benefits, nor
will we threaten them with other reprisals, if they designate or attempt to get
Teamsters Union Local 795, affiliated with The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of. America, or any other
labor organization, selected as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees economic benefits for the purpose of
discouraging their union activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to form, join,
or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing ; to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become, to remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization of their own choosing.
BOGE IRON AND METAL CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
CHICAGO PERFORATING COMPANY 583
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building , 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City , Missouri , Telephone No. Balti-
more 1-7000 , Extension 731, if they have any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Chicago Perforating Company and Amalgamated Industrial
Union, Local No. 44. Case No. 13-CA-5746. Jvne 22, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his De-
cision 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Ile further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such
allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, both the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.
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 McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
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 Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Chicago
Perforating Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
and the complaint with respect to any alleged unfair labor practices
other than those found by the Trial Examiner is hereby dismissed.
1 In the listing of counsel appearing for the parties in the Trial Examiner ' s Decision,
the Union is inadvertently designated as the "Respondent Union." The Union is, of
course, the Charging Party.
2 In adopting the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent had knowledge of Hubbard's
organizational activities , Member Jenkins finds it unnecessary to, and he does not, rely
upon the relative smallness of Respondent' s operations.
147 NLRB No. 75.