C. R. Graybeal & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 700 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to discontinue existing employee bene-
fits, prior to bargaining, should Houston Printing Pressmen &
Assistants ' Union, No. 71, International Printing Pressmen &
Assistants ' Union of North America , A. F. of L., or any other,
labor organization , be certified as bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain; or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or, assist Houston
Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 71, International
Printing Pressmen ' & Assistants ' Union- of North America;
A. F. of L., or any 'other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other - mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all of such activities , except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring 'membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
THE REIN COMPANY,
- Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
'(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days"from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
B. F. Gr iybe-al and R. W. Graybeal, d/b/a C. R. Graybeal & Sons
and International Woodworkers of America, CIO. Case No.
10-CA-29218. October 26, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 27, 1955, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,, finding that-the Re-
spondents had not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged
in-the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
114 NLRB No. 111.
C. R..GRAYBEAL _&,SONS, 701
in its entirety; as set forth in the'copy of the. Intermediate Report-at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the Union, but not the General Counsel;
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,' and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 In its exceptions , the Union objected to consideration by the Trial Examiner- of
Respondent ' s brief to the Trial Examiner without proof of service upon the Charging
Party Attached to Respondent 's brief is an- affidavit of service certifying to the fact
that copies of the brief were served ' upon all interested parties including the Charging
Union . We therefore find the Union ' s objection to be without merit.
2 The Union ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including the
exceptions , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings , authorized by Section 10 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, as amended , 29 USC, 1952, Section 141 et seq., herein
called the Act, are based upon a charge filed on January 3, 1955 , an amended
charge filed oh January 19, 1955, and a second amended charge filed on -March
8, 1955 , by International Woodworkers of America, CIO, herein called the
Union, against B . F. Graybeal and K . W. Graybeal, d/b/a C. R. Graybeal &
Sons, herein called Respondent . Pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act, on or
about April - 13, 1955 , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein separately designated as General Counsel and the Board , issued a complaint
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act , affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act . Copies of the charges,
the complaint , and all other pertinent processes were duly served upon Respondent,
who in due course filed an answer admitting that it is engaged in commerce, but
denying all allegations of unfair labor practices.
With respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance that
Respondent ( 1) interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogation concerning their
organizational activities , spying upon their union meetings , and threatening to close
down its plant and to engage in other economic reprisals by reason of their activities
on behalf of a labor organization ; and (2 ) discriminated in regard to hire or tenure
of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization by discharging
and refusing to reinstate its employees , Roy L. Troutman , William L . Street, and
James G. Osborne because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union , and because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was conducted at Elizabethton , Tennessee, on
May 23 and 24 , 1955, before the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel . and a representative
of the Union was present . All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce ' evidence pertinent to
the issues involved . At the close of the hearing all parties waived oral argument,
and were authorized to file written briefs and/or proposed findings and conclusions
with the Trial Examiner . A written brief thereafter filed by counsel for the Respond-
ent has been given due consideration. No written brief was submitted by counsel
for the General Counsel or Charging Party. -
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a partnership composed of two brothers, Byron F. Graybeal and
K. Wayne Graybeal, doing business as C. R. Graybeal & Sons. The partners are
jointly engaged in the manufacture and sale of'hardwood flooring. For that purpose
they maintain a business office in the town of Roan Mountain, Tennessee. Approxi-
mately one-quarter to one-half mile away in the outskirts of the town they' operate
a lumber plant under the management of Superintendent Ernest Tester. They
employ approximately 50 or 60 employees and a yard foreman named V. O. Bateman.
The labor supply is procured from the surrounding rural community, and the plant
is enclosed by a fence. Entry to the plant premises is provided by a gate, which
was customarily locked whenever the mill was not in operation. Keys to the gate
were customarily kept at the boilerhouse under supervision of the fireman.
During the year 1954, which period is representative of all times material herein,
Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped to customers outside the State of
Tennessee finished products valued in excess of $100,000. It is found, therefore,
that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for the National
Labor Relations Board to assume jurisdiction in this case.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The organizational activities
During the early part of August 1954 an organizer for International Woodworkers
of America, CIO (C. A. Dishner), interviewed Employee Roy Lee Troutman with
respect to forming a labor organization at Respondent's plant. Shortly thereafter,
about August 14, 1954, the plant was closed down and all employees were laid off,
except a maintenance crew of 6 or 7 men, including Troutman, which was retained
for the purpose of overhauling machinery and making repairs to buildings, etc.
Thereupon, Dishner suggested that organizational activities be postponed until
production operations at the plant were resumed. Operations at the plant were
resumed on Monday, September 13, 1954, at which time Roy Lee Troutman and
William L, Street returned to work along with other employees.'
' On Sunday, September 12, 1954, Organizer Dishner visited the home of Roy Lee
Troutman in a remote rural community about 5 miles from the plant. At that time
Troutman and Street agreed to promote the union campaign. At their solicitation
approximately 1 dozen employees assembled for the first union meeting at Trout-
'man's home on Tuesday night, September 14, 1954, and joined the Union. All agreed
to promote the organization. A second meeting, was held at Troutman's home ap-
proximately I week later. At this meeting it was announced that a third meeting
would be held at Miller's store on the highway about one-half mile west of the town
of Roan Mountain, Tennessee. In the meantime Respondent had been apprised of
the organizational activities, consulted a lawyer, and during working hours on
September 29, 1954, read to assembled employees a prepared written statement, as
follows:
September 29, 1954.
FELLOWS: I am going' to read this statement to you because some one, might
misunderstand what I have said. I am going to let George McGahee have a
copy to read along with me. Reading this to you just keeps the record straight.
We have heard that there has been some union activity among you lately
from outside our own village and we thought you would like to know just
where we stand on that. We are opposed to a union in this plant and we have
the right to tell you of our opposition and the reasons back of that.
3 Street was reemployed to operate a cutoff saw in the final process of trimming waste
from usable lumber. All waste was subsequently sold as firewood to employees and the
general public.
,C. R. GRAYBEAL & SONS 703
Most every one of you at some time or another has come to us with your
personal problems about the hospital bill , or building a new house , or adding a
room , or buying a new car . We have listened and when we could , we have helped
with each and every project . It has been a personal relationship which Emmett
Johnson or Ulus Arnett or Dave Young or Dave Hughes or any of you other boys
can think over . We do not want a third party to be added to this kind of relation-
ship.
We have asked Mr. Tester to tell us what was the matter with our mill besides
other mills where he has been foreman . He told us that our policy of letting our
men off to work their crops and market their potatoes and tobacco makes it
awfully hard for him to keep up a sustained production because he has to put a
new man on a new job almost every day. This cuts , down production for us but
we felt that since we all live in the country and need to work our farms and
gardens it would be in your interest to let'you off to do this work at home. We
realize that if a man can work his garden and. farm at home and milk his own
cow, he is in much ' better position than , when he has to leave home to find
employment . We do not want to deal with a third party when you want off
and we don 't think you do either. .
We are having over 40% waste here at this mill and a Johnson City mill for
which we have waste figures shows an'average waste of 30 %. That means if a
load of lumber comes to us costing $300.00 we will lose over $30.00 more than
this mill in Johnson City because of our greater waste . It may come as a surprise
but counting insurance , taxes, cost of doing business and depreciation , this-mill
has just about broke even so far this year . We have lost money in other years.
We would have done better if we had pushed production up 25 % or 30% or if
we had not let our boys off to work the farm . We believe you realize what $10.00
to $60 .00 per load of lumber, if saved , could do for us all.
We wanted you to know the reasons why we are opposed to a union in this
plant . We appreciate your coming in this morning and listening to us. Thanks!
K. WAYNE GRAYBEAL.
BYRON F. GRAYBEAL.
The third union meeting was held at Miller 's store on the night of September 29,
1954, and adjourned about 9 : 30 p. in. Before the crowd dispersed , Foreman V. O.
Bateman in company with his wife and children drove up to the store and stopped,
but did not get out of his car . Employee John G. Markland walked over to'Bateman's
car and voluntarily told him what had been going on. Markland testified that Fore-
man Bateman questioned him about the meeting and on subsequent occasions ques-
tioned him about other union meetings.
Foreman V . O. Bateman credibly testified that he had no intention of spying on
employees , and never at any time questioned John G. Markland about this or other
meetings ; that on the night of September 29, 1954, he had been out driving with his
family and merely stopped at Miller's store to purchase gasoline and cigarettes as
he had customarily done in the past ; that he saw the crowd around the store, but
made no inquiries beyond the information volunteered by Markland without solicita-
tion by him; and that he had recently observed that organizational activities were in
progress , but had no prior knowledge of this meeting or the other meetings at Trout-
man's home.
James G. Osborne , employee, testified that while the union meeting at Miller's
store was in session he observed both of the partners Byron F . Graybeal and K. Wayne
Graybeal , peeping through the window . He also testified that he saw them at their
car outside through the door , but admitted extreme uncertainty as to their identity
at that time.
From my observation of the witness , James G. Osborne , and because he was not
corroborated by any other witness, I find his testimony incredible . I credit the
testimony of Byron F . Graybeal and K . Wayne Graybeal that they did not stop at
Miller's store that night and had no knowledge that the union meeting was being held.
K. Wayne Graybeal credibly testified that he drove to Johnson City, Tennessee, on
business early in the evening on that date and returned to his home in Roan Mountain
about midnight ; and that he passed Miller 's store both going and returning, but did
not stop at either time. -
Counsel for the General Counsel offered testimony by Jesse James McKinney, who
was employed by Respondent for a period of 9 weeks and then laid off shortly before
Christmas in 1954 . McKinney testified that Respondent hired him about October
1954 on condition that he would not have anything to do with the Union , and that
he would endeavor to obtain information for Respondent; that when he again
applied to Respondent for employment in 1955 one of the Graybeal partners accused
6
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him of affiliation with the Union, and refused to give him'a,job.' He was unable to
identify the partner alleged to have engaged in such conduct.. Admittedly he became
a witness in this case at the request'of James G. Osborne, whose testimony in other
respects [have discredited.
Having observed the witness McKinney, I am constrained to discredit his testi-
mony, and to credit the testimony of K. Wayne Graybeal and Byron F. Graybeal
that no such conduct was engaged in by either of them.
B. The discharge of Roy Lee Troutman and William L. -Street
The Graybeal partners , were admittedly opposed to a-union organization,in their
plant, but disclaim any knowledge of organizational activities prior to September 16,
1954, when they- discharged Roy Lee Troutman and William L. Street allegedly
for the reason that their work was unsatisfactory . The partners jointly occupied
an office located one-fourth to one-half mile from the mill plant, where all business
transactions were conducted . Within a fenced enclosure Superintendent Ernest
Tester had complete authority and responsibility for production operations subject
to directions from the partners. Each of the partners customarily, made two short
visits to the plant,premises daily .to observe then operations. According to testimony
offered by Respondent both K. Wayne Graybeal and Byron F. Graybeal had ob-
served on frequent-occasions that Roy Lee Troutman neglected his workrby talking
to other employees and leaving his place of duty. Each of the partners complained to
Superintendent Tester and instructed him to get rid of Troutman , but for some rea-
son he failed to do so. K. Wayne Graybeal testified also that he observed that William
L. Street loafed on the job, and suspected that he was inefficient because the rate of
waste was abnormally high compared with other mills. Consequently, the partners
jointly agreed to discharge Troutman and Street, and instructed Superintendent
Tester to send them to the business office on the morning of September 16, 1954.
When separately interviewed for discharge both Troutman and Street contended that
they were being fired on' account of their union activities . Respondent partners
at that time disclaimed any knowledge of such activities, but at the same time ex-
pressed opposition to dealing with a union organization . Byron F . Graybeal admit-
ted making a statement that they had no intention of recognizing a union, but denied
that Respondent has at any time interfered with the organizational activities.
Byron F. Graybeal, K. Wayne Graybeal, Superintendent Ernest Tester, and Yard
Foreman V. O. Bateman credibly testified to the effect that prior to the discharge of
Troutman and Street they had heard nothing of a meeting at Troutman's house,
and had no knowledge that union activities had been started. Each of them cate-
gorically and credibly denied all testimony offered by counsel for the General
Counsel that either of them at any time interrogated employees concerning their
organizational activities or engaged in surveillance of union meetings . Following
the discharges of Troutman and Street the Respondent partners admittedly inter-
viewed Superintendent Tester and Foreman Bateman concerning their observation
and knowledge of the union activities, consulted a lawyer, and prepared a written
statement which was read to employees, as hereinbefore set forth, which in my
opinion was privileged under the provisions of Section 8 (c) of the Act, and did not
constitute interference, restraint, and coercion of employees within the meaning of
the Act.
From the record as a whole I find no substantial evidence to support a finding that
Respondent had prior knowledge or suspected that Troutman and Street were engaged
in organizational activities.
C. The discharge of lames G. Osborne
James'G.`Osborne was employed as fireman at the plant boilerhouse. According
to his. own testimony he first heard about union activities and the first meeting at
Troutman's house in a conversation with. Yard Foreman V., O. Bateman shortly
after, Street and Troutman had been discharged. When Bateman asked him some-
thing about the, meeting, Osborne said he was not there, hadn't been there, and
didn't know. there had been any union started at that time.. He signed a member-
ship application'a few days later, attended the second meeting at Troutman's home,
and also, attended the third meeting at Miller's store. Osborne testified somewhat
vaguely, concerning a,conversation he had with V. O. Bateman and Byron F. Graybeal
after thenieetiiig at Miller's store in which he asserted, "I belong to the United Mine
Workers Union," and,"well, I reckon I can belong to two," or something like that;
and 'thereupon Byron F. Graybeal asked the question, "How would you like for
somebody to take a.gun over to your house and make you drink buttermilk?",
'C. R. 'GRAYBEAL &- SONS 1 705
During the latter part of October .1954 Respondent sold to one&Truman Green an
irregular pile of old lumber from a,demolished building .in the mill yard. As com-
pensation for separating and assisting in loading -serviceable lumber from the pile,
Green agreed that James G. Osborne have the unserviceable scrap for firewood. After
Green had removed the serviceable material, Osborne hired John . G. • Markland to
haul the scrap to his home. Yard Foreman. Bateman called Osborne's attention.to
several pieces of new lumber in or near the scrap pile, and caused it to be placed
in a separate pile. Osborne in turn told Markland not to molest the new lumber.
At dusk on Friday evening, October 22, 1954, Osborne and Markland loaded and
hauled two truckloads of the scrap lumber to Osborne's home. On Saturday,
October 23, 1954, they returned to the plant to get the final truckload. At that time
Foreman Bateman complained that several pieces of new lumber were missing
and upon investigation it was found in the scrap pile at Osborne's home. Thereupon,
Osborne contended that the 'new lumber had been carried away by mistake, and
agreed to either pay for it or return it to the plant. Thereafter, Osborne found
Wayne Graybeal on the street and without adequately explaining the circumstances
proposed to buy the lumber taken by,mistake. Graybeal postponed, fixing', a price
until he,could see. Foreman, Bateman. After conferring with- Foreman Bateman and
Superintendent Tester, Respondent concluded that the new lumber worth about
$10 had been wilfully- removed from ,the plant premises.after working hours, and
on Monday, October 25, 1954, discharged James G. Osborne. On the discharge
slip presented to Osborne Respondent wrote a reason for discharge: "Work unsatis-
factory; discharged for taking lumber' unauthorized off of property." Later during
,the same day John G. Markland on behalf of James G., Osborne returned the new
lumber in question to the plant premises of Respondent. -
. The foregoing findings of fact based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and the
record as a.whole, will not support a finding that James G. Osborne was discrimina-
torily discharged.
Concluding Findings
It is alleged'in'paragraph numbered 7 of the complaint that on and after September
15, 1954; until about, November 22, 1954, Respondent by, its agents, B. F. Graybeal
and V. O. Bateman, interrogated employees concerning their union membership, at-
tendance at union meetings, and other organizational activities., Having credited
the denial of B. F. Graybeal and V. O. Bateman, and finding the testimony of James
G. Osborne and John G. Markland in that respect unworthy,. of belief, I shall recom-
mend that paragraph numbered 7 of the complaint be dismissed.
It is alleged in paragraph numbered 6 of the complaint that on or about Septem-
ber 16, 1954, and at various times thereafter, Respondent by its'agents, B. F. Gray-
beal, K. W. Graybeal, and V. O. Bateman, threatened to close its plant rather than
recognize the Union, and to engage in other reprisals by reason of its employees'
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Upon consideration of all
the testimony, and the record as a whole, I find no substantial evidence to support
that allegation, and shall recommend that paragraph numbered 6 of the ,complaint
be dismissed.
-It is alleged in paragraph numbered 5 of the complaint that on or about Septem-
ber 14, 1954, and October 12, 1954, Respondent by it's agents and supervisors,
B. F. Graybeal, K. W. Graybeal, and V. O. Bateman, spied on and kept under
surveillance union meetings attended by its employee's. With respect to the dates
mentioned I find no evidence in the record to support a finding of unlawful surveil-
lance. With respect to the union meeting at Miller's store on the night of Septem-
ber 29, 1954, I discredit the uncorroborated testimony of James G. Osborne to the
effect that he observed Byron F. Graybeal and-K. Wayne Graybeal peeping through
the window while the meeting was in session. , To the contrary, I credit the testimony
of the 'two Graybeals that they did not visit the premises of, Miller's store on the
,night of September -29,- 1954. The isolated' fact that Foreman' V. O. Bateman
stopped at Miller's store on a public highway either while the union meeting was in
,session or immediately thereafter, and there engaged in conversation with employee
John G. Markland, is not substantial evidence that he was' engaged'.in unlawful sur-
veillance of the organizational activities going on at that place. Assuming with-
out finding that curiosity impelled him to stop and, inquire into the nature of the
outside assembly of employees in front of, the store, without something more to
indicate that he was seeking information to be used to the disadvantage of Re-
spondent's employees, or that his conduct on that occasion was such that employees
might reasonably assume that his observations would result in detriment to their
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rights, there would be no restraint or coercion , and hence no unlawful surveillance.'
The elements to establish unlawful surveillance on that occasion are entirely lack-
ing. I shall therefore recommend that paragraph numbered 5 of the complaint be
dismissed.
It is alleged-in paragraph numbered 4 of the complaint that on or about Septem-
ber.16 , 1954, Respondent discharged and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate
Roy LeeTroutman and William L . Street because of their membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and pro-
tection . A finding of discriminatory discharge herein would necessarily include
the finding that Respondent had knowledge of or suspected that Troutman and Street
had engaged in concerted activities within the protection of Section 7 of the Act.
The burden is upon the General Counsel to establish that motivating factor by a
preponderance of the evidence . In this case representatives of the Union did not at
any time visit the premises of Respondent or make any demands for recognition.
No petition for, a representation election was filed until October 1, 1954. All con-
tacts by the union organizer with employees were made away from the plant and
the first union meeting was held in a remote rural community . There is no evidence
that discussion and solicitation among fellow employees on the premises of Re-
spondent was apparent to supervisors prior to the discharges of Troutman and
Street on September 16, 1954. The secrecy and remoteness of organizational ac-
tivity prior to that date lends credence to the testimony of the partners , K. Wayne
Graybeal and Byron F. Graybeal, Superintendent Ernest Tester, and Foreman V. O.
Bateman that , all organizational activity was unknown to them until announced by
Troutman and Street when discharged . Their credible testimony outweighs any
presumption to'the contrary . Finding that the General Counsel has failed to sustain
the burden of -proving any illegal discriminatory motive on the part of Respondent,
I shall recommend that paragraph numbered 4 of the complaint , insofar as it per-
tains to Troutman and Street , be dismissed.
It is also alleged in paragraph numbered 4 of the complaint that on or about
October 25, 1954, Respondent discharged and thereafter failed and refused to rein-
state James G. Osborne because of his membership in, and activities on behalf of,
the Union and because he engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. Hav-
ing already found that James G. Osborne was discharged for removing new lumber
from the plant premises of Respondent contrary to instructions, I shall recommend
that paragraph numbered 4 of the complaint , insofar as it pertains to him , be dis-
missed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent , B. F. Graybeal and K . W. Graybeal, d/b/a C. R. Graybeal
& Sons, was at all times material to this case engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
9 N. L. R. B. v. Falls City Creamery Co., 207 F. 2d 820 (C. A. 8).
Combustion Engineering , Inc., Chattanooga Division and Lodge
No. 656 , International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 10-RC-3081. October 26,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Cordes, hearing
114 NLRB No. 113.