Bohemia, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1984

272 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

BOHEMIA, INC 987
Bohemia, Inc. and International Woodworkers of
America, Local Union No. 3-246, AFL-CIO.
Case 36-CA-4384
29 October 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 5 April 1984 Administrative Law Judge Rus-
sell L. Stevens issued the attached decision. The
Union filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative
law judge is adopted and the complaint is dis-
missed.
1 The Union has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings
The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge This
case was tried in Eugene, Oregon, on February 14,
1984.' The complaint, issued October 4, is based on a
charge filed April 11 by International Woodworkers of
America, Local Union No. 3-246, AFL-CIO (the
Union). The complaint alleges that Bohemia, Inc. (Re-
spondent) discharged its employee Carl A. Cox in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act (the Act).
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witneses, to argue orally, and to file bnefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and
Respondent.
On the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
' All dates are in 1983, unless otherwise stated
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, an Oregon corporation engaged in the operation of
a wood products facility in Drain, Oregon. During the
past 12 months, which period is representative of all
times material herein, Respondent sold and shipped from
its Drain facility products valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to points outside the State of Oregon
I find that Respondent is, and at all times material
herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, Local Union
No. 3-246, AFL-CIO is, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background2
Respondent has nine manufacturing plants in Oregon
where it produces wood products. Of the nine plants,
four are organized by unions. Respondent's plant in
Drain, Oregon, where the principal product is plywood,
is involved in this controversy. Neil Hammond is Re-
spondent's personnel director, in charge of personnel
matters at all of Respondent's plants. Wayne Pape is
manager of three plywood plants and two veneer 3 plants
in Oregon, including the plant located in Drain He has
an office in three plants. The Drain facility was pur-
chased by Respondent in 1980 from Wooley Enterprises.
Some of the approximately 220 full- and part-time em-
ployees at Drain formerly worked there for Wooley En-
terprises. Mike Rudy is the plant superintendent at
Drain, and supervises a foreman on each of three shifts—
day, swing, and graveyard. Pape indirectly supervises
the Drain plant, where he has an office which he visits
each morning, and Rudy is in direct charge of the plant.
Veneer is produced at the Drain plant, where it is
processed into plywood. After veneer is cut from logs, it
is processed and dried, and cut into various sizes for use
in making plywood. Production of veneer generates
quite a lot of scrap, much of which falls to the floor,
where it may be walked on or driven over until removed
by a cleanup man responsible for keeping the floor clear
of debris As veneer is produced, it is taken to various
areas of the plant, where it is stacked on pallets awaiting
use in plywood. Frequently, all aisles throughout the
plant are crowded with high stacks of veneer. Transport-
ing of veneer is done on forklifts, operated by full-time
forklift drivers or by workers assigned to other tasks but
who operate forklifts occasionally throughout the day as
2 This background summary is based on credited testimony and evi-
dence not in dispute
3 Veneer is thin sheets of wood peeled from logs on lathes, which is
trimmed, cut, and glued into layers from which plywood is produced
272 NLRB No. 149
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
required in order to carry out their basic responsibilities.
Veneer sheets sometime fall to the floor from stacks or
from forklifts, and plant policy is for forklift operators
who see the veneer in time to stop their vehicles and
place the veneer where it belongs before driving further
or before driving on top of the veneer. The policy is
based on two factors. First, forklifts cannot be braked
when they are atop veneer without a resulting skid
Forklift loads thus may be dumped. Personal injury or
property damage can be, and has been, the result of such
skids Second, although individual sheets of veneer are
not expensive, they are so thin that they are easily torn
and shredded, and indiscriminate mutilation of them
would result in unacceptable economic loss. Forklift
drivers have been instructed on many occasions not to
run over veneer intentionally unless that cannot be
avoided. In some instances, immediate braking on first
seeing veneer could result in dumping a load. Therefore,
forklift drivers sometimes run over veneer because they
cannot reasonably avoid doing so. However, intentional-
ly and avoidably, runnning over veneer is exceptional,
and is not a practice accepted by Respondent.
Carl Cox began working for Respondent in June 1981
as a relief dryer tender. He also did odd jobs with fork-
lifts About 6 or 7 months later, he became a full-time
forklift operator. In May or June 1982 the Union at-
tempted to organize Respondent's Drain facility, and
Cox was selected to "head up" the campaign. Although
Cox did not initiate contact with the Union, he was
active in the campaign, and collected signed authoriza-
tion cards for transmittal to the Union. Between 30 and
50 cards were signed, the campaign was not successful,
and no petition for an election was filed by the Union.
Respondent knew that Cox was involved in the cam-
paign, and three members of management, including
Pape, talked with Cox concerning his union activity.4
Pape indicated that he was opposed to the Union. A
second campaign was launched in January 1983, and Cox
was the plant committee chairman for the Union. Cox
and fellow employee Eric Gordon initiated the campaign
through Cliff Longacre of the Union because they were
dissatisfied with a pay reduction effected by Respondent.
Several off-premises meetings were held by the Union
with employees thereafter, and Cox obtained 30 to 35
signed authorization cards, which he turned over to Lon-
gacre. A total of approximately 80 cards were signed by
employees. So far as Cox knew, and so far as the record
shows, no supervisor saw Cox distributing or receiving
cards. Cox did all his soliciting outside the plant except
for one card, which he distributed and received in the
plant lunchroom On one occasion, on March 19, Cox
talked with Pape in the latter's office concerning the
Union and Respondent's financial condition. An election
was held March 24, which the Union lost by a substan-
tial margin. Approximately a week prior to the election,
Rudy asked Cox if he had put a union sticker on a plant
window, and Cox replied that he had not, although, he
said, he had brought some stickers to the plant.
4 There is no allegation that Respondent violated the Act prior to
Apnl 1983 Respondent acknowledges that it knew Cox was a union sup-
porter both in 1982 and in 1983
On April 11 Cox ran over several pieces of veneer that
had fallen from a stack onto the floor, and soon thereaf-
ter Rudy talked with him about the incident, and dis-
charged him.
B Cox's Union Activity
Respondent acknowledges that it was aware of Cox's
union activity, but denies any knowledge concerning spe-
cific activities or their extent. Respondent knew that Cox
was a union observer at the election
Cox and Pape gave different versions of their conver-
sation of March 19, and neither version is credited in its
entirety. Cox testified that Pape talked against the Union,
talked about economic effects of unionization, and said a
reason always could be found to fire Cox if Respondent
wanted to do so. Pape testified that he invited many em-
ployees, including Cox, into his office to explain Re-
spondent's financial situation, and talked about the eco-
nomic problems Respondent faced. Testimony on this
point was limited and inconclusive, but, in any event,
there is no allegation that a violation of the Act was in-
volved and it is clear that, whatever the nature of the
conversation, there is no basis for finding any coercive
questioning or threat by Pape. Cox's testimony implied a
threat by Pape, but that testimony was ambiguous and
somewhat confusing. It is not clear whether Pape was
referring to the fact that, had Respondent wanted to get
rid of Cox, it could have done so earlier when Cox ran
into a post with a forklift. Cox said that accident was
caused because the forklift had no brakes, but Pape
denied that statement. This conversation has been care-
fully considered, and no basis is found for concluding
that Pape demonstrated hostility toward Cox or his ac-
tivity on behalf of the Union It would be just as logical
to find that Cox said he feared company pressure, and
that Pape said Respondent already had ignored a good
reason for discharge if that was Respondent's intent. Re-
spondent does not deny that it preferred not to be orga-
nized by the Union, and it is not a violation of the Act
for Respondent to express that desire to employees. Such
an expression appears to be about all of substance that
was involved in this conversation.
Cox testified that, soon after his conversation of
March 19 with Pape, Rudy met him on the work floor
and, referring to the March 19 conversation, stated to
Cox, "[Thu had your chance and you blew it." Rudy
denied ever making that statement to Cox. Assuming, ar-
guendo, that Rudy made the statement, it is too isolated
and ambiguous to provide a basis for any finding Cox
said the conversation of March 19 lasted 1-1/2 hours,
and Rudy's brief (alleged) remark could have referred to
anything embodied within that conversation This testi-
mony is given no weight.
C. Cox 's Work History with Respondent
Cox testified that he and other drivers run over
veneer, both usable and scrap, every day, but that he
never has been disciplined for it, nor does he know of
any employee who has been disciplined or discharged
for it. Cox said he once ran into a roof support post with
a forklift, and the roof dropped 5 or 6 inches because of
BOHEMIA, INC. 989
the accident. Cox testified that a supervisor (Frank
Jacobs) gave him a verbal warning, but that he argued
about it because the forklift had no brakes. 5 Cox said
that was the only warning he ever received from Re-
spondent, verbal or written. He testified that he has
spilled loads on a couple of occasions, but that is a
common problem with all forklift drivers; that he has
damaged veneer, but not much of it and anyway it may
have been repairable; and that he broke an overhead
light by hitting it with a forklift load on election day,
March 24. He said Pape told him to be careful.
Pape testified that he was present when Cox spilled a
forklift load, he scolded Cox about it, and he told Rudy
to make a written notation of the incident; that he once
saw Cox damage some veneer while carrying it on a
forklift, he "jumped him about it," and he reported the
incident to Rudy, although Rudy did not make a written
notation about the incident; and that he saw Cox break a
light and told Rudy about it.
Rudy testified that he was in the hospital in January or
February 1983, that Pape took over for him at that time,
and that when he returned to work Pape told him about
his problems with Cox. Rudy testified that he talked
with Cox about the light-breaking incident.
General Counsel's Exhibit 4 is a list from Respondent's
files showing the incidents of spilling the load and dam-
aging veneer, including the one involved in Cox's dis-
charge. Rudy testified that he prepared the list after he
returned from the hospital and talked with Pape, listing
the first two incidents. He said that, possibly, the second
incident occurred March 24 (note: as testified by Cox),
but that he did not see the incident and does not know.
Discussion
As can be seen from the above, testimony of the wit-
nesses concerning Cox's work performance is not con-
sistent. It is apparent that Cox was not a superlative fork-
lift operator. Rudy testified, as noted more fully infra,
that forklift drivers are trained and tested, and frequently
instructed to operate forklifts in a safe manner. It does
not appear that Cox was an unsatisfactory forklift opera-
tor, but his excuses for incidents seemed superficial and
defensive rather than convincing. In any event, it does
not appear that his work history was such that Respond-
ent would be expected to take extraordinary measures to
retain him following the discharge incident discussed
below. At best, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill em-
ployee.
D. Respondent's Forklift Operation Policy
Cox testified that, in reality, there was no firm forklift
operation policy. As noted above, he said all forklift
drivers drove over veneer, both usable and scrap, every
day or almost every day without being disciplined. He
said drivers were supposed to stop and pick up good
veneer if it was in their path, but intimated that conven-
ience, rather than policy, determined whether or not
they would stop. Cox testified that drivers casually were
5 The verbal warning is noted in writing in Respondent's files See
GC Exh 3
told by Rudy in a meeting approximately in July 1982
that they were not supposed to run over veneer, and that
written rules for drivers were handed out, which includ-
ed a rule relative to running over veneer.6
Dale Black, an experienced plywood worker who has
worked for Respondent the past 3 years and who has
been a forklift driver for Respondent 2 or 2-1/2 years,
testified as the General Counsel's witness that he has run
over veneer, but not very often. He testified that Re-
spondent's policy concerning running over veneer is
"[W]e weren't supposed to do it." He said Rudy gave
him a verbal warning 2 or 2-1/2 years ago when he in-
tentionally ran over veneer when he was in a hurry, and
that Rudy said "if it happened again that he would re-
place me." Black said a copy of General Counsel's Ex-
hibit 2 was handed to drivers during an orientation ses-
sion when drivers' licenses first were issued. Black testi-
fied that Respondent considers running over veneer to be
a serious matter, and that "they don't want you to do it."
Black described the reasons for Respondent's policy as
both economic and safety related.
Terry Kraack, who has driven a forklift the past year,
testified for the General Counsel that he has run over
usable veneer perhaps "once a night," but not on pur-
pose He said that he never has been warned about run-
ning over veneer, and that he never has seen a copy of
General Counsel's Exhibit 2. He said he knows of no one
who has been discharged for running over veneer other
than Cox. However, Kraack said, his foreman has told
him to pick up veneer he sees lying on the floor in the
path of his vehicle, or to report it to his foreman. He
said he has run over veneer in order to complete a
changeover, 7 and that, in his opinion, a changeover is
more important than veneer on the floor.
Harold Roady, who formerly was a forklift dnver for
2 years but who presently operates a forklift only 10
minutes or so each night in his work as a stock wrestler,
testified for the General Counsel that he has run over
veneer on the floor, but never deliberately. He said he
has done it only when it was not safe to brake to a quick
stop. He testified that running over veneer is "something
that people are reminded of quite often," that the subject
has been discussed at four or five meetings of drivers and
other employees, that it has been discussed at other
meetings, and that copies of General Counsel's Exhibit 2
were distributed during two or three of the meetings. He
said Rudy and Jacobs, both of whom were his foremen,
talked with him about running over veneer, but that he
did not receive any written warning. He said Rudy told
him approximately 2 years ago that "they were going to
fire somebody for running over wood, if they had to
take those steps to get it stopped."
Emerson Atchley, a dryer tender who drives a forklift
approximately 50 percent of his worktime, testified for
6 G C Exh 2
7 A changeover occurs when the sizes of sheets and types of wood
going through the dryer are changed The old sheets must be cleared
from the dryer and conveyors before the new run is started Changeovers
are effected as quickly as possible in order to preclude the necessity of
shutting down the dryer and thereby delaying, and increasing the cost of,
production Forklifts are relied upon during changeovers, to move veneer
entenng and leaving the dryers and their supporting equipment
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel that he has run over veneer occasional
ly but not intentionally that is only when it was not
avoidable He said it is common practice to run over
scrap veneer but that good veneer should be picked up
rather than run over
Pape testified that running over veneer causes econom
ic loss and creates a safety hazard He stated that no em
ployee other than Cox has been discharged for running
over veneer
Rudy testified Forklift drivers are given driving tests
each 2 years and he holds many meetings with drivers
in groups and singly to discuss driving rules and habits
because of serious safety factors involved Two incidents
at the plant within the past few months emphasized the
danger of dnving forklifts One accident resulted in per
sonal injury to an employee who was hit (the driver quit
his job) and one resulted in an employee death when the
roof collapsed after a supporting post was hit Change
overs do not justify violating safety rules including driv
ing over veneer Much of the changeover work by fork
lift drivers can and should be completed in advance of
the actual changeover The matter of running over
veneer which creates substantial safety hazards involv
ing skids as well as economic loss is one of Respond
ent s more serious problems and one requiring Rudy s
continuing and frequent attention He has discussed the
subject with all drivers including Cox on many occa
sions Respondent s Exhibit 2 was prepared by him on
September 24 1981 It reads
Sept 24 1981
TO Jitney Drivers
FROM Mike Rudy
With the increasing amount of dry wood inside our
mill it is very important that you are aware of the
extreme safety hazard While Carrying Loads be
extremely aware of people walking Make sure all
stacked veneer is properly marked leveled & has
three stickers under it Be extremely careful & alert
Thanks
/s/ M Rudy
Mike Rudy Superintendent
General Counsel s Exhibit 2 which has been distributed
to drivers includes the following company rule for fork
lift drivers 8
5 Do not run over veneer Get off and pick it
up This is not only costing us money but is ex
tremely dangerous Jitneys will not stop on veneer
Respondent s Exhibit 3 General Rules of Conduct
was signed by Cox It provides for disciplinary action
up to and including discharge for violation of safety
rules or unsafe work habits
Rudy testified that it is expected that drivers will run
over scrap around dryer tables but that is a different
matter from running over good sheets of veneer lying in
aisles where forklifts are driven The latter practice is
9 Cox testified that he never received a copy of this document
forbidden except in unavoidable circumstances Driving
around the tables is done at slow and deliberate speed
and is not unduly dangerous since stops can be made
safely and quickly
Bill Baker who has been one of Respondent s forklift
drivers approximately 2 years testified for Respondent
that drivers have been instructed by Rudy not to run
over veneer He said such a practice is dangerous be
cause of possible skidding a fact that is known by all the
drivers He said he and other drivers sometime run over
veneer but not deliberately
Discussion
It is quite clear from the testimony of all witnesses that
driving a forklift over veneer is costly (in the aggre
gate)9 and dangerous and that Respondent s policy is
that drivers should not engage in such an act unless it is
unavoidable
It is equally clear that Respondent s policy has been
enunciated to all forklift drivers on several occasions
Finally it is clear that intentionally running over
veneer can be a cause for discharge Two of the General
Counsel s witnesses (Black and Roady) stated that Rudy
made it clear to them that Respondent was thinking
about firing employees for deliberately running over
veneer
Cox down played the importance of running over
veneer but that testimony was contradicted by his
fellow employees and Respondent s witnesses and is not
credited The matter was shown to be of considerable
concern to Respondent
Cox and other witneses testified that they ran over
veneer every night or nearly so but that testimony is of
little weight The circumstances were not described
there is no indication of how often if at all supervisors
were aware of the incidents other witnesses testified that
such incidents were not common and rarely were delib
crate and the testimony seemed exaggerated
The question remains as to whether or not Cox was
fired because he ran over veneer or because of his union
activity
E Cox s Discharge
Cox testified While driving with a load on April 11
he heard some veneer blow off from a stack onto the
floor The dryer tender had told him sometime before
then that there would be a changeover in 10 minutes By
the time he dropped off the load the 10 minutes almost
were over so en route to the dryer he intentionally
drove over the veneer When he neared the dryer he
saw that the changeover had not started so he drove to
the bathroom He then drove back to see if the change
over had commenced and it had not On the way a
fellow employee said Rudy wanted to see him so he
went to where Rudy was near the roundtable The
dryer tender came up and said there would be a further
delay in the changeover and the two of them then
picked up the fallen veneer and placed it on the stack
Approximately 10 pieces had fallen to the floor of which
9 Individual sheets are valued at approximately Si
BOHEMIA INC r, 991
he ran over 3 on their corners Damage if there was
any was minimal He then went over to talk with Rudy
who asked why he had run over the veneer He replied
that he was in a hurry because of the changeover and
intentionally ran over it because either way he would get
chewed out 10 Rudy replied this is bullshit Just
running over veneer is bullshit They parted but Rudy
came back and said [W]e no longer need your services
park the Hyster and leave
Pape testified There is nothing about a changeover
that would justify intentionally driving over veneer A
good forklift driver will have much of the work done
ahead of time After the discharge Cox came into the
office and asked if Pape was going to back Rudy and
Pape said yes because Rudy would not fire him without
good reason Pape asked the reason for the discharge
and Cox said it was for running over veneer Pape asked
why and Cox said he had to go to the restroom Cox
said that if Pape backed Rudy I m going to take this
thing and go with it Cox said nothing about a change
over
Rudy testified In the early morning of the discharge
there was a fire in the dryer and a blast of air from the
dryer blew some veneer onto the floor As he turned his
head while fighting the fire he saw Cox run over the
veneer and keep on going He stepped into the aisle and
saw Cox drive to the bathroom area and get off the fork
lift He continued fighting the fire and told an employee
to have Cox come see him A little later he saw Cox and
another employee picking up the veneer so he left the
fire and talked with Cox He asked Cox how many times
he had told Cox not to run over veneer and Cox said
hundreds of times He said I don t think you under
stand what I ye been trying to tell you and Cox said
I understand Rudy said Park the Hyster over there
We no longer need you Rudy then returned to the fire
Rudy testified that the sole reason for firing Cox was de
struction of veneer and violation of safety regulations
and that Cox s union activity was not a reason Rudy tes
tified that nothing about a changeover justifies running
over veneer and further that Cox said nothing to him
about a changeover at the time of the discharge or at
any other time Rudy denied Cox s testimony concerning
the matter being bullshit Rudy testified that he knew
of no changeover either just before or just after the dis
charge Cox s termination slips gives the cause neglect
of duty
Discussion
To the extent there are discrepencies in the testimony
of Rudy and Cox concerning the events of April 11
Rudy is credited As previously noted Respondent had a
" As noted supra all drivers knew of Respondent s policy concerning
dnving over veneer and hence Cox would know of his Catch 22 situ
ation It is possible that Cox did not receive a copy of G C Exh 2 but
admittedly he knew of Respondent s policy relative to running over
veneer
clear policy known to Cox that the latter deliberately
violated It seems that Cox s testimony concerning a
changeover was an afterthought There is no support in
the record for a changeover nor is there any apparent
basis for using a changeover as justification for violating
company policy Rudy and Pape credibly testified that
there was no such justification
It may well be that as the General Counsel and the
Charging Party argue discharge was severe punishment
for Cox s violation but that is not a matter for the
Board s consideration That severity does not establish
that Respondent was seeking a reason to fire Cox It is
equally logical to assume that as Rudy contends Cox
was fired on the spot when Rudy was busily engaged
and had just witnessed Cox violate a policy of concern
to Respondent of which Cox was well aware
It is also contended that Cox s discharge was in retalia
tion for his union activity but that contention is incon
sistent with the record Respondent already had won the
election by the substantial margin of 146 to 63 It was
not necessary to get rid of Cox and there is nothing in
the record to show that Respondent knew the extent of
Cox s union activity Nor does the record show that any
other employee was retaliated against Certainly Cox was
not the only employee who actively supported the
Union
It also is contended that Cox s punishment was unusual
and abrupt but that argument is not persuasive There
was some testimony on behalf of the General Counsel to
the effect that Respondent had a policy of giving written
notices prior to discharge but the record does not sup
port that inference Some of that testimony referred to
an alleged statement by Hammond but Hammond credi
bly denied having made the statement attributed to him
Pape and Rudy both credibly testified that verbal and
written warnings may be given for relatively minor of
fenses such as absences or tardiness but that the pro
gram of giving warnings is not consistent or inflexible
and that discharges may be effected on the spot for sen
ous offenses such as fighting or as in Cox s case arbi
tranly violating a safety rule Rudy credibly testified
and records in evidence show that discharge of employ
ees by Respondent for serious offenses is common For
instance recent discharges involved poor work unde
pendability fighting restricting production insubordina
tion neglect of duty and failure to report
The record does not support the conclusion that Cox
was discharged in violation of the Act and such a con
elusion is not made
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Bohemia Inc is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the
Act
2 International Woodworkers of America Local
Union No 3-246 AFL-CIO is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 Respondent did not violate the Act as alleged
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed"
" If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed wal‘ ed for all pur
poses