Comfort Spring Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 173 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

III the Matter of COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION and UNITED FURNI-
TURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 75, C. I. O.
Case No. 5-CA-238.-Decided June 8, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 24, 1950, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it 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, the Union filed a reply brief, and the Respondent
:subsequently filed a brief in reply to the Union's brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union,
which, following a consent election, was formally certified by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region on August 28, 1949. The
Respondent contends that it has no duty to bargain because the
Union, which we had administratively found to be in compliance
with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, is not in fact in compli-
ance. The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's refusal to
.admit evidence bearing on the question of compliance, and argues
this point at length in its briefs.
We have recently reiterated our views on this subject in Sunbeam
Coi°porationa,.2 In that case, as in the present one, the validity of a
-Board certification was attacked on the grounds : (1) That non-
Com-munist affidavits had not been filed by certain individuals who, al-
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
:Board has delegated its powers in conection with this proceeding to a three -member panel
'[ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
2 89 NLRB 469.
.90 NLRB No. 28.
173
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
though not designated as officers, allegedly exercised the functions
of officers in the union; and (2) that the non-Communist affidavits of
other officers in the union were perjured. In that case we said:
In advancing this contention the Employer would, in effect,
have us overrule our earlier Decisions, in which we have held that
the determination of compliance is an administrative matter not
litigable by the parties, that the Board will not go behind the
affidavits identifying the officers of. a labor organization to deter-
mine the truth thereof, and that it was the intention of Congress,
in enacting Section 9 (h), that the filing of affidavits be suffi-
cient for the Board's purposes, all questions of perjury with
respect to such affidavits being within the province of the Depart-
ment of Justice. We find nothing in this record to cause us to
alter our previous expressed opinions on these matters. [Citing
cases.]
The facts of the present case are no better warrant for a departure
from our previous policies. The Respondent's contention that the
affidavit of Max Perlow is perjured has already been considered and
disposed of by the Board in another case.3 We have independently
investigated the Respondent's contention that Max Weinstein is an
officer of the Union who should be required to file a non-Communist
affidavit, and have found that Weinstein is not an officer of the Union.
Under these circumstances, we are not persuaded that any exception
should be made for the Respondent by allowing it to introduce evi-
dence relating to a matter which we have uniformly stated is not
litigable.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Comfort Spring Corpora-
tion, Baltimore, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 75, C. I. 0., as the
exclusive representative of all its production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding office and clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, sales personnel, guards, and supervisors, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds is
required to effectuate the policies of the Act :
3 American Seating Company, 85 NLRB 269 . . _ ,_^
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION 175
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Furniture
Workers of America, Local 75, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative
of all its production and maintenance employees, excluding office and
clerical employees, professional employees, sales personnel, guards,
and supervisors, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its plant in Baltimore, Maryland, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A".4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 BARGAIN collectively upon request with UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 75, C. 1. 0., with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, excluding office and
clerical employees, professional employees, sales personnel,
guards, and supervisors.
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION,
Employer.
By-----------------------------------
Dated--------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice, before the words. "A Decision and Order" the words, "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing."
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
George L. Weasler, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Joseph Allen, Esq., of Baltimore, Md., for the Respondent.
Harry Weinstock, Esq., and Marlin Raphael, Esq., of Weinstock and Tauber,
New York, N. Y., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon a charge filed on September 23, 1049, by United Furniture Workers of
America, Local 75, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued a complaint, dated October 25, 1949, against
Comfort Spring Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section S (a) (1) and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
by Public Law 101, 80th Congress, Chapter 120, 1st Session (61 Stat. 136), herein
called the Act. Copies of the charge. complaint, and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the Respondent on or about September 15, 1949, and at all times thereafter
down to the date of the issuance of the complaint, refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's
employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although the Board on August
29, 1949, had certified the Union as statutory representative of the employees for
the purpose of collective bargaining.' The complaint alleged that by the fore-
going conduct the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
Thereafter on November 4, 1949, the Respondent filed its answer, in which it
alleged in substance: (1) That the Board is without jurisdiction, competence, or
authority to issue the complaint against the Respondent for the following
reasons: (a) That the officers of the Union, particularly the officers of Local
75, had failed to comply with Section 9 (h) of the Act; (b) that the affidavit of
Max Perlow,' secretary-treasurer of the International Union, filed with the Board
in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 (h) of the Act was in fact an
"obvious sham" and was filed only for the technical purpose of permitting the
Union to use the facilities of the Board, and that under such circumstances the
Union has not actually complied with the spirit and intent of Section 9 (h) of
the Act, and hence the Board is without jurisdiction to issue a complaint against
the Respondent, and to conduct a hearing thereon ; and (c) that upon information
and belief of the Respondent the Union had failed to comply with Section 9 (g)
of the Act; (2) (a) the answer admits its corporate structure and that it is
' The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein referred to as the
General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
2 Comfort Spring Corporation, Case No. 5-RM-32.
3 The Respondent based its allegation against Perlow on an article appearing in the New
York Times, June 6, 1949. At the hearing herein the Respondent offered in evidence the
article referred to. It was rejected by the undersigned on the grounds that it was irrelevent,
incompetent , and immaterial , and ordered it placed in the rejected exhibit file.
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION 177
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act; (b) the appro-
priateness of the bargaining unit as set forth in the complaint; (c) that a
majority of its employees selected the Union as its bargaining representative in
an election conducted by the Board on August 19, 1949; and (d) that it refused
to bargain with the Union after its certification by the Board; (3) but denies
that by so doing it violated Section S (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 29, 1.949, at Baltimore,
Maryland, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent were
represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties.
At the opening of the hearing the General Counsel offered in evidence as part
of the formal papers, a motion filed by the Union to strike that portion of the
answer which alleges that the Board is without jurisdiction to either issue the.
complaint herein or to conduct a hearing based thereon because the charging
Union was not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The
motion was admitted in evidence wdithout objection. The undersigned then per-
mitted all parties to state their respective positions as regards the merits of the
issues raised by the motion to strike. After argument on the motion was had
the undersigned granted it in all its branches on the grounds that the issues
raised by the answer in this regard were Matters for administrative determina-
tion and not litigable by the parties.' After the motion to strike was disposed
of the General Counsel then referred to the undersigned petitions to revoke sub-
poenas issued prior to the hearing herein by the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region at the request of the Respondent to the following individuals; (1) A
subpoena dukes tccwna directed to the Honorable Maurice J. Tobin, Secretary of
Labor or any ofli::ial or employee of the Department having custody of the docu-
ments required to be filed under Sections 9 (f) and (g) of the At and to produce
those which were filed by the Union prior to October 28, 1949; (2) a subpoena
duces tecum directed to John A. Penello, Regional Director for the Fifth Region
all affidavits filed by the officers of t:he Union with the Board prior to October
25, 1949, in accordance with Section 9 (h) of the Act; (3) a subpoena directed
to Max Perlow, secretary-treasurer of the Union; (4) a subpoena directed to
Max Weinstock; and (5) a subpoena duces tccuila directed to John W. Schwartz,
president of Local 75 of the Union, to produce certain documents relative to the
Union's membership, constitution, and bylaws, and other papers and documents
in his possession which are required to be filed with the Secretary of Labor under
the provisions of Section 9 (f) and (g) of the Act. The undersigned granted
the petitions to revoke subpoenas as to all parties to whom they were directed,on
the grounds that the evidence which the Respondent desired to adduce from
the individuals subpoened or have produced on the deuces tecum subpoena were
matters for administrative determination and not litigable by the parties and
for the further reason that they did not in any manner relate to any natter
under.investigotion or in question in the proceeding as required by Section 203.31
of the board Rules and Regulations.
After the parties had rested their respective cases, the General Counsel filed
with the undersigned proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law based
thereon and then moved that the undersigned render his decision from the
' See American Seating Company, Cases Nos. 7-RC-520, 7-RC-521. and 7-RC-525, and
authorities cited therein ; Shawnee Milling Company, Case No. 16-C-1479.
90 3847-5l.-vol. 0,,0 13
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bench prior to the closing of the hearing. The motion was denied by the
undersigned.
On December 7, 1949, counsel for the Respondent filed with the undersigned a
motion to reopen the hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony previously
rejected by the undersigned at said hearing, and for the further purpose of
having him reconsider his rulings on the granting of certain motions at said
hearing to revoke subpoenas. Thereafter on December 12, 1949, counsel for the
Union filed with the undersigned objections to the granting of the motion to
reopen. Counsel for the Respondent in his motion to reopen cited as authority
for his action in this regard Section 1.02.13 (e) of the Board Rules and Regula-
tions which was added thereto on December 2, 1949. The undersigned after
considering the Respondent's contention in this regard reached the conclusion
that this section was not applicable to the issues involved herein, and denied
the motion to reopen in all its branches on December 29, 1949.
At the close of the hearing a motion by.the General Counsel to conform the
pleadings to the proof in respect to minor matters such as names, dates, and the
like was granted'.
Upon conclusion of the hearing all parties were advised that they might argue
orally before the undersigned concerning their respective positions, and were
also advised as to their right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, with briefs in support thereof. None availed themselves of this opportunity.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
At the hearing herein the parties stipulated that Comfort Spring Corporation
is a Maryland corporation engaged in the manufacture of bedding and uphol-
stered springs at its plant at Baltimore, Maryland. During the year 1948, the
Respondent purchased supplies and raw materials valued in excess of $100,000,
of which over 50 percent was shipped to the Respondent's Baltimore, Maryland,
plant from points and places outside the State of Maryland. During this same
period the Respondent sold finished products valued in excess of $100,000, of
which over 50 percent was sold and shipped to points and places outside the
State of Maryland from its Baltimore, Maryland, plant.
Upon the foregoing stipulated facts the undersigned finds that the Respondent
is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 75, C. I. 0., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 , subsection (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sequence of material events
Upon a petition duly filed, the Board conducted a consent election by secret
ballot among the Respondent's employees in the foregoing appropriate unit
on or about August 19, 1949:
5 '.l'he findings of fact set forth in this section of the Report were stipulated by the partiee
lit the hearing.
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION 179
All production and maintenance employees but excluding office and clerical
employees, professional employees, sales personnel, guards, and all super-
visory employees constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
As a result of the election a majority of the Respondent's employees in the
above-described appropriate unit selected the Union as their representative for
the purpose of collective bargaining with the Respondent. The Union was
formally certified as such by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region on
August 29, 1949.
On August 24, 1949, the Union by letter requested the Respondent to bargain
collectively with it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent's employees in the above-described appropriate unit as regards rates of pay,
hours of employment,-and other conditions of employment. On September 15,
1949, the Respondent by its attorney, Joseph Allen, wrote the Union following
letter :
HARRY WEINSTOCK, ESQ., ,
150 Nassau Street, New York, New York. -
DEAR SIR : This will confirm telegram sent to you today as follows :
"APPOINTMENT RE COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION FOR
FRIDAY CANCELLED LETTER FOLLOWS"
After further consideration we have decided that we will not negotiate
with the United Furniture Workers of America as the bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees.
We take this position because it is our opinion that despite the affidavit
filed by Max Perlow, the International Union has not complied with the
law.
We therefore believe that we should have a determination of the National
Labor Relations Board on this question. If it should finally be determined
that we are obliged to bargain with you and an order is issued to that
effect, we shall of course comply.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Joseph Allen,
JOSEPH ALLEN,
Attorney for Comfort Spring Corporation.
The Respondent admits that it has at all times material herein refused to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ-
ees. Its sole defense is, as indicated above, that the Union is not in fact in'full
compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
Conclusion
As indicated above the Respondent admits that it has and does now refuse
to bargain with the Union because it is convinced that it is under no legal obli-
gation to do so. It predicates its position in this regard on the theory that the
Union and several of its officers are not in full compliance with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act. This is the sole issue involved herein. The Respondent
makes no contention that the Union has lost its majority ; that the consent
election held by the Board on August 19, 1949, was improperly conducted ; or
that the unit is inappropriate. Hence its defense is dependent upon the inter-
pretation by the Board and the courts of the effects of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h)
of the Act in similar situations.
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is nothing new or novel about the issues involved herein. It has been
raised before in numerous cases. The Board has consistently held that compli-
ance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) is an administrative matter and not
litigable by the parties.' The position of the Respondent is similar to that of
the Respondent in the Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation case, 78 NLRB 842.
In that case the Board held as follows :
The Respondent further contends that the persons who were the officers
of the Union prior to January 20, 1948, were unable or unwilling to execute
the affidavits required by Section 9 (h) and that as a consequence, on or
about that date, they conducted a referendum among the members of the
Union on a proposed change in its constitution so as to provide for only two
national officers, who alone thereafter filed the required affidavits, although
other former officers continued in de facto status. The Respondent alleges
that this referendum was undertaken with' the intent of circumventing the
provisions of Section 9 (h). It urges that the Board reopen the record for
the purpose of receiving evidence to this effect, which it claims will show
that the Union is not in compliance.
The contentions made by the Respondent illustrate the possibility tinder
existing law that unions, by abolishing offices under their constitutions but
assigning identical duties to officials who shall no longer be denominated as
"officers," may frustrate the Congressional intent to drive Communists from
positions of leadership in the labor movement. As the Board reads the
statute, however, these considerations cannot properly, deter it from process-
ing a case when the statutory requirements have been met.
The provisions of Section 9 (h) require only that there shall. be on file
with the Board affidavits executed by each officer. The Board additionally
requires an affidavit identifying the officers of the labor organization involved
(Section 203.13 (b) (1), National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regh-
lations, Series 5). In the instant case there is on file. an affidavit identifying
the officers of the Union, and non-Communist affidavits signed by each officer
so identified. It is not the purpose of the statute to require the Board to
investigate the authenticity or truth of the affidavits which have been filed.
Persons desiring to establish falsification or fraud have recourse to the
Department of Justice for a prosecution tinder Section 35 (a) of the Criminal
Code. The evidence sought to be adduced under this allegation is accord-
ingly immaterial.
In view of the foregoing the undersigned is convinced and finds that the Re-
spondent's contention herein in justification of its refusal to bargain with the
Union is without merit. Moreover the Board had administratively found that
the Union was in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act prior
to the holding of the consent election among the Respondent's employees on or
about August 19, 1949. Clearly the undersigned is in no position to disturb the
Board's finding in this regard.'
On all of the foregoing and the entire record, the undersigned concludes and
finds that from on or about September 15, 1949, and at all times thereafter, the
Respondent has refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, and thereby interfered
with its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, and thus violative of Section S (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
See footnote 4, supra.
Case No. 5-RM-32.
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PIIACTICES UPON COMMERCE
181
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE, REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices,. it will be iecoumended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having, found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of. its employees in an appropriate unit,
the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Union.
Because of the basis of the Respondent's refusal to bargain, as indicated in
the facts found, and because of the absence of any evidence that danger of other
unfair labor practices is to be ant:icipaied from the Respondent's conduct in the
past, the undersigned will not recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from the commission of any other unfair labor practices. Nevertheless, in order
to.-effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from-the unfair labor practices found and from in
any manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively
with it.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 75, C. I. 0., is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees but excluding office and clerical
employees, professional employees, sales personnel, guards, and all supervisory
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 75, C. I. 0., was at all times
material herein, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the above-described appropriate unit, for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on September 15, 1949, and at all times thereafter to bargain
collectively with United Furniture Workers, Local 75, C. I. 0., as the exclusive
representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
S (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in. and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices. affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record of the case, the undersigned recommends that the Re-
spondent, Comfort Spring Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Furniture Workers, Local
75, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance
employees but excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees,
sales personnel, . guards, and all supervisory employees, in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Furniture Workers
of America, C. I. 0., to bargain collectively with it on behalf of the employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Furniture Workers of
America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all production and main-
tenance employees, but excluding office and clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its plant in Baltimore, Maryland, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be -furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent or its representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington, 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies, upon, together
with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party
may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by
precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed
or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service
on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made
as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION 183
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 24th day of January 1950.
JAMES A. SHAW,
Trial Examiner.
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 National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with United Furniture Workers
of America, Local 75, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of :
All production and maintenance employees but excluding office and clerical
employees, professional employees, sales personnel, guards, and all super-
visory employees, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain with us, or refuse to bargain with said union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set forth above.
COMFORT SPRING CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated -------------------------- By -----------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty ( 60) days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.