Globe Wireless, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1262 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD. and LORRAINE E. CONGER,
LILLIE I. FRIEND , PAUL GUERRERO , JOHN GYURCSIK, ALBERT E.
HINDS , CHARLES A. JONES , VIRGINIA KELSO, VIOLET A . LEACH, JESSE
E. McLIN, HOMER E. MULLIGAN, RUDOLPH W. NIEMI, MALCOLM G.
PARKS , Louis PENA , SYLVIA POT=, BRUCE E. RISLEY, GEORGE J.
ROSENGREN, DAVID E. SHEAFFER, PAULINE SMITH, LESLIE T.
WHEELER, VIOLA H. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALS
Case No. 00-CA-193.-Decided March 20, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 28, 1949, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in this case , finding that the Respondent had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after all parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs. The charging parties requested oral argument.
This request is hereby denied because the records, exceptions, and
briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties?
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
3 After the Issuance of the Intermediate Report the charging parties filed a motion to
augment record , in which the General Counsel joined , for the purpose of introducing evidence
that a request for reinstatement had been made on behalf of the charging parties.' In Its
response to this motion the Respondent agreed to the Inclusion of this evidence provided It
is accepaed solely to establish that a conditional request for reinstatment was made, but
requested that, in any event, it be permitted to introduce evidence with respect to the
replacement of the charging parties prior to their request for reinstatement . As we herein-
after find that the evidence offered by the charging parties establishes only a conditional
request for reinstatement , there is no outstanding objection to the motion to augment the
record. It is hereby granted and the evidence hereby made a part of the record in this
case. In view of our findings hereinafter set forth , evidence as to the replacement of the
charging parties prior to their request for reinstatement is irrelevant and the Respondent's
request to introduce such evidence is hereby denied.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board. has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
88 NLRB No. 211.
1262
GLOBE ' WIRELESS, LTD. 1263
rulings are hereby affirmed.3 The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions 4 and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent that they are consistent
herewith.
1. The complaint alleged that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) by threatening its employees with discharge or demotion
as a penalty for activity on behalf of the ACA and by other similar
acts and conduct. The Respondent contends that these allegations
are not properly before us because the charges alleged violations of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) by certain discharges, and did not contain
any averment alleging the independent violations of Section 8 (a)
(1) subsequently included in the complaint. We do not accept the
Respondent's contention that a complaint issued under the amended
Act is limited in scope by the averments contained in the charge filed
to initiate the proceeding. On the contrary, we have held that "a
complaint may lawfully enlarge upon a charge if such additional
unfair labor practices were committed no longer than 6 months prior
to the filing of such charge." 5 The complaint herein lawfully en-
larged upon the charge."
The Trial Examiner, howver, dismissed the allegation of 8 (a) (1)
violations on the ground that the statements made were privileged
tinder Section 8 (c). We do not agree.
The Trial Examiner found that Bash told Pottle that the Respond-
ent "had `to get rid of the Communists,' that the ACA would never
come back into the plant, and that if Pottle was wise she would get out
of the ACA `while the getting was good."' We agree with the Trial
3 The Trial Examiner properly granted the General Counsel 's motion to strike the follow-
ing defenses : ( a) That the charges are not filed by the charging individuals but were filed
on their behalf by the American Communications Association , herein ACA , a noncomplying
union ; ( b) that the ACA restrained and coerced nonmembers and had attempted to cause
the Respondent to discriminate in favor of the ACA ; ( c) that no relief could be granted to
effectuate the policies of the Act . The provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) impose no
limitations of the filing of charges by individuals , and the fact that the noncomplying
union may have assisted members in filing charges is immaterial . Augusta Chemical
Company , 83 NLRB 53 ; see Olin Industries , Inc., 86 NLRB 203. Neither noncompliance
nor misconduct on the part of the ACA constitutes any defense to the charges here. See
Andrews Company, 87 NLRB 62 , an d Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company, 87 NLRB 54.
Evidence relating to these defenses was therefore properly excluded.
The Trial Examiner refused to exclude the complainants as witnesses in granting the
Respondent 's motion to sequester witnesses . Complainants are generally not excluded.
Biggs Antique Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 345, 348 . The related motion to sever the charges
was properly denied. See N. L. R. B . v. Kinner Motors ,_ 152 F. 2d 816 (C. A. 9).
1 We find no prejudicial error in the Regional Director ' s dismissal of the Respondent's
application for taking depositions before a notary public of all of the 20 individuals who
filed charges, and for subpoenas to require their attendance . The dismissal was without
prejudice ' to make the subpoenas returnable at the hearing. See Paul Uhlich & Co., Inc.,
26 NLRB 679, 681. .
c Cathey Lumber Company , 86 NLRB 157.
6 Biggs Antique Company, Inc ., 80 NLRB 345, 348.
1264 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner's implicit holding that Bash was privileged to label the
ACA leaders and members as "Communists."' But we cannot agree
that Bash's further statements were not violative of the Act. In
context, his statement that the ACA would never come back clearly
implied that the Respondent would resort to any measure necessary
to rid itself of that union.8 His admonition to get out while the
getting was good was an unequivocal warning that the Employer
intended to discriminate against ACA members,9 combined with an
assurance that if Pottle left the union her position would be safe 10
We also consider in this category the other statements of Bash, to
Conger and Shaeffer and others, that "if you are going to tie your-
selves to the tail of this Communist kite, you can sink with it." That
statement was a warning that the Respondent intended to oust the
ACA and discharge its adherents 1'
The record, as the Trial Examiner indicated, reflects various other
statements of this nature by Bash. We find likewise violative (a)
Bash's warning to Conger that the ACA couldn't do her any good,
in view of his counselling her to "remember that it's pretty nice to
keep eating, you know"; (b) Bash's statement to Kelso that the Re-
spondent wanted the Union out of its offices and that it was starting
with "guys like Chuck Jones and Bruce Risley and . . . going
down the line." Such a statement, under the circumstances, was a
clear warning to Kelso to disavow the union or-as he had stated to
other employees-"sink with it."
We find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) by these
statements.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the discharge of Charles Jones
was for insubordination and did not violate Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. We agree 12 Jones admitted having flatly refused to perform
certain tasks assigned him during his working time. The fact that he
was active on behalf of the ACA, a union which the Respondent sought
to eliminate, did not give him immunity for refusing to comply with
.such' directions by management.`
I Morristown Knitting Mills, Inc., 86 NLRB 342; see El Paso-Ysleta Bus Line, Inc.,
85 NLRB 1149.
See Crosby Chemicals , Inc., 85 NLRB 791; J. S. Abercrombie Company , 83 NLRB 524.
Dixie Mercerizing Company, 86 NLRB 285.
15 The Red Rock Company, 84 NLRB 521.
11 Keith Furnace Company , 73 NLRB 754 ; N. L. R. B. v. C. D. Beck & Company , 1577. 2d
514, 515 ( C. A. 6), cert. den. 330 Ti . S. 838.
1: The Trial Examiner made several inadvertent misstatements in his account of the
Jones episode . These mistakes were immaterial to his decision , and are to ours ; we there-
fore find no need to enumerate them.
13 See N. L. R . B. v. Ross Gear & Tool Company, 158 F. 2d 607, 612-614 (C. A. 7). The
direction in the instant case was not on its face so arbitrary as to warrant the ' inference
that it was given in order to be violated . Cf. The Russell Manufacturing Company Incor-
porated, 82 NLRB 1081.
GLOBE: WIRELESS, LTD. 1265
3. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent violated
Section 8 ( a) (3) and 8 ( a) (1) when, on January 21 and 22, it dis-
charged 16 of the complainants because they struck in protest 14 against
Jones ' discharge.
The Trial Examiner correctly found that as the strike was in pro-
test against a lawful discharge it was an economic strike, and the
Respondent was free to replace such strikers at any time prior to their
unconditional request for reinstatement . However, it does not follow
from this that the Respondent was free to discharge the strikers before
they had been replaced . Under the circumstances .of this case,'-' the
discharges violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 ( a) (1) of the Act,18
unless there is merit to the Respondent 's contentions that the strike
was for an unlawful purpose or otherwise unprotected.
The Respondent contends that the strike contravened the Federal
Communications Act of 1934 and was therefore illegal under the doc-
trine of the Southern Steamship Co. case 17 This contention is based
on the assertion that any work stoppage would, in violation of Section
501 of that Act,18 cause the Respondent to breach its statutory duty
to furnish service. We find no merit in this contention . The Act pro-
hibits the licensee from voluntarily abandoning service without the
approval of the Commission ; 19 it does not penalize the licensee whose
failure to continue service is attributable to others, as in the case of
a strike. The Act does require a licensee to serve without discrimina-
1' The Trial Examiner found that the strikers demanded Jones' reinstatement , although
the charging individuals testified that they had requested an opportunity to discuss it.
However , it is immaterial whether the employees were withholding their services in order
to force Jones ' reinstatement or to secure a discussion of what they regarded as a griev-
ance. Under either view the strike was a protected concerted activity. See Kallaher and
Mee, Inc., 87 NLRB 410; Agar Packing & Provision Corporation , 81 NLRB 1262.
15 The Trial Examiner found that Bash, in accordance with McPherson's instructions, gave
the two groups the option of returning to work or striking and told them that they were
discharged when they chose to strike . He also found that McPherson confirmed the first
group discharge and then renewed the option . McPherson testified , "I told them that they
should 'return to their jobs , if they didn ' t I had no alternative but to discharge them."
He admitted discharging them when they refused to return to work. All of the charging
individuals received "final pay checks" covering their salaries to the dates on which they
were told that they were discharged . As the Respondent did not attempt to settle the
strike or solicit the return of the strikers , we find no basis for concluding, as did the Trial
Examiner, that "any or all of them could have had their jobs back at any time before
they were filled by new employees ." The record clearly establishes that the strikers were
discharged before they had been replaced ; therefore , evidence relating to their subsequent
replacement is not material.
1B Kallaher and Mee, Inc., 87 NLRB 410, and cases cited therein ; cf. Kansas Milling
Company, 86 NLRB 925, and cases cited therein.
17 Southern Steamship Co. v. N. L. R. B., 316 U. S. 31 ; The American News Company,
Inc., 55 NLRB 1302. °
11 47 U. S. C. "Sec. 501. Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or
suffers to be done any act, matter , or thing, in this Act prohibited or declared to be unlawful,
or who willfully and knowingly permits or fails to do any act. matter, or thing in this Act
required to be done , or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure,
shall , upon conviction thereof be punished . . .
1147 U. S. C. Sec. 214.
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, ie. e., "upon reasonable request"; 20 but that duty is not breached
if a strike prevents the licensee from serving anyone.
The Respondent also argues that the strikers are not protected be-
cause they violated nondiscriminatory company rules and their con-
tract of employment by stopping work. The Respondent relies on a
notice, posted on October 21, 1948,21 stating. that "the Company re-
serves the right to discharge, suspend, or otherwise discipline any
employee it has reason to believe is failing to perform his work prop-
erly." The Respondent enlarges the clear intendment of this provi-
sion, which we have already recognized in finding that Jones was
discharged for cause, to prohibit its employees from protesting Jones'
discharge on the premises and during their working hours. We agree
that the employees cannot "continue to work and remain at their po-
sitions, and at the same time select what part of their allotted tasks
they cared to perform of their own volition." 22 However, these em-
ployees engaged in a complete work stoppage.and were discharged
because they chose to strike.
The Respondent further contends that the strike violated Section
8 (b) (2) in that its purpose was to compel the Respondent to dis-
criminate in favor of Jones' because of his activity in and on behalf
of the ACA. The record is replete with evidence that the strikers
believed that Jones had been discriminatorily discharged, because of
his ACA membership and activities, and feared similar reprisals
against themselves. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for
the assertion that the strikers were seeking to compel the Respondent
to give preference of employment to the active ACA members and
adherents or to permit them to engage in insubordination merely be-
cause of their union membership.23 Moreover, the Board has generally
recognized that a strike to protest a nondiscriminatory discharge is
protected concerted activity?'
The Respondent also argues that the strikers were not protected
because they engaged in a sit-down strike. The employees stood
around Bash's desk for about an hour while they discussed Jones'
discharge. They left immediately after they were discharged. They
did not claim to hold the premises in defiance of the owner's right of
20 47 U. S . C. Sec. 201.
Y' The Globe -ACA contract , which expired on August 15 , 1948, contained a no-strike
clause. Thereafter the Respondent refused to recognize the ACA because it had not com-
plied with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act. The notice of October 21 repeated the
Respondent's position and contained the further statement that it rejected the terms of the
expired contract . The terms of that contract are therefore not applicable here. See
Columbia Pictures Corporation , et at.. 64 NLRB 490. 506.
21 N. L. R . B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co ., 157 F . 2d 486 , 496 (C. A. 8).
23 National Maritime Dnion, 78 NLRB 971, on which the Respondent relies, is therefore
inapposite.
24 Kallaher and Mee, Inc., supra, and cases cited therein.
GLOBE: WIRELESS, LTD. 1267
possession . We do not regard their action as in the nature of a sit-
down strike.25
We therefore find no merit in the Respondent's several contentions
that the strike was unprotected and conclude that the discharge of the
strikers violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. We find that the Respondent also violated Section 8 (a) (3)
and 8 (a) (1), when, on January 24, it discharged employees Guer-
rero, Wheeler, and Friend, because they aligned themselves with the
strikers.
The Trial Examiner found that Bash fired Guerrero because he was
justified in believing that Guerrero was feigning illness and that he
was aligning himself with his fellow ACA members in going on strike.
The Trial Examiner found that Bash discharged both Wheeler and
Friend when it became clear to him that they chose to join the strike
rather than work. The record supports these findings.
When Bash learned that Guerrero had been reported out because
illness.27 Bash immediately discharged him. Bash testified signifi-
anyway, because he was not going to stand for any -union tricks .211
Bash testified that he told Guerrero to get a doctor's certificate. Guer-
rero reported for work at his usual hour on January 24; Bash asked
him if he had a doctor's certificate. Guerrero replied that he did not,
and had never before had to have one for 1 day's absence due to
illness.27 Bash immediately discharged him. Bash testified signifi-
cantly that he then told Guerrero, "I know you are going to make me
reinstate Chuck Jones, now get down there on the bricks with the
rest of them and make me do it." We think it clear that Bash fired
Guerrero because he thought Guerrero had joined the strike. The
fact that he may have been mistaken does not render his discharge of
Guerrero the less an unfair labor practice.28
Wheeler and Friend were with Guerrero when he was fired. Bash
then told Wheeler he was discharged because he had not shown up for
work the night before.29 Before Wheeler could explain, Bash told
him to go outside with Guerrero and "try to make him reinstate Chuck
Jones, Bruce Risley, and company." Guerrero and Wheeler left.
Bash then turned to Friend and told her to get to work. When she
2'N. L. R. B: v. American Manufacturing Company, 106 F . 2d 61, 67-68 (C. A. 2),
modified and affirmed 309 U. S. 629 ; cf. N. L. R. B. v. Condenser Corporation of America,
128 F. 2d 67 , 77 (C. A. 3).
25 Barlow was the secretary of the ACA. Bash admitted telling Guerrero that he
"wouldn ' t stand for any Barlow tricks."
27 According to Bash, the general practice was to excuse absence caused by illness without
medical certificates , but to pay sick leave only to those who presented certificates.
I8 N. L. R . B. v. Link -Belt Company, 311 U. S. 854, 859-860.
29 As we find that Bash unequivocally discharged wheeler on January 24 , we need not
resolve the conflicting testimony concerning the import of Bash ' s telephone call to wheeler
on January 23. It is apparent that Bash thought that wheeler, as well as Guerrero, had
absented himself from sympathy with the strikers.
882191-51-81
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
began to talk about the various discharges, Bash brusquely told her
to "trot along then." 30 She then joined Guerrero and Wheeler and
all three went down to the picket line. The Respondent contends that
it was entitled to put to the employees the choice of working or strik-
ing and that it did so. We agree. However, the same reasons which
make the group discharges unlawful apply and make these discharges
violative of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1).
The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practices Upon Commerce
The activities of the Respondent, set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with .the operations of. the Respondent, described in Section I
of the .Intermediate Report, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to commerce and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
The Remedy
The discharge of employees because they engaged in concerted
activity protected by Section 7 of the Act violates Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.. Because such discharge amounts to a discrimination
in hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization,31 it also violates Section 8 (a) (3). More-
over, whether the discharges be regarded as a violation of Section
8 (a) (1) or of Section 8 (a) (3), we find that it is necessary to
order reinstatement with back pay, as hereinafter provided, in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act.32
We are convinced on the record as a whole that the unfair labor prac-
tices committed by the Respondent are potentially related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in
the past. In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall, accord-
ingly, order the Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner in
fringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by the Act.--
It is our practice to award employees who are discriminatorily dis-
charged while on strike back pay from the date when they uncondi-
tionally requested reinstatement rather than from the date of their
30 As Friend received terminal notice along with the rest of the dischargees, we regard
this statement of Bash tantamount to a discharge.
31 It is immaterial whether or not the rights were asserted through the organization to
which the group members in fact belonged. Augusta Chemical Company, supra ; Gullett
Gin Company, Inc., 83 NLRB 1, enforced 179 F. 2d 499 (C. A. 5) ; Olin Industries, Inc.,
supra.
32 Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, 55 NLRB 1 ; and see footnote 3, supra.
83 May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
GLOBE' WIRELESS, LTD. 1 1269
discriminatory discharges, on the theory that the loss of wages cannot
conclusively be attributed to the discharge until the employees have
indicated their willingness to abandon the economic strike.34 From
the evidence which is now before us 35 it appears that on March 2,
1949, the dischargees requested reinstatement. That request, however,
was for the reinstatement of all the charging parties, including
Charles Jones. The Respondent refused to make a group reinstate-
ment and regarded the request as conditional upon the reinstatement
of Charles Jones. We conclude that no unconditional request for re-
instatement had been made, indicating the charging parties' willing-
ness to abandon the strike.36 As the record does not enable us to,
determine whether the strike has been otherwise abandoned, we shall
order back pay only from the date of such abandonment to the date
on which the Respondent offers reinstatement to the employees named
in Appendix A.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby
orders that the Respondent, Globe Wireless, Ltd., San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in labor organizations of its em-
ployees by discharging or refusing to reinstate or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collectice bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, and 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 Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees named in Appendix A, attached hereto,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
It Massey Gin and Machine works, 78 NLRB 189; Kallaher and Mee, Inc., supra.
as See footnote 1, supra.
36 See Wilson & Co., Inc., 77 NLRB 959, 902, 981, footnote 37.
1270 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
equivalent positions,37 and make them whole 33 for any loss of wages
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the matter
described in the section above entitled The Remedy ;
(b) Post immediately at its office and place of business in • San
Francisco, California, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked
Appendix A.39 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges other
violations of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining 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 agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act.
',in accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position :" See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
`e See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 ; E. R. Hafelfinger Company, Inc., 1
NLRB 760.
19 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a Court of Appeals , there shall
be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words , "A DECREE OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
GLOBE' WIRELESS, LTD. 1271
. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. against them, as
set forth in the Decision and Order :
Lorraine E. Conger
Lillie I. Friend
Paul Guerrero
John Gyuresik
Albert E. Hinde
Virginia Kelso
Violet A. Leach
Jesse E. McLin
Homer E. Mulligan
Viola H.
Rudolph W. Niemi
Malcolm G. Parks
Louis Pena
Sylvia Pottle
Bruce E. Risley
George J. Rosengren
David E. Sheaffer
Pauline Smith
Leslie T. Wheeler
Williams
All our employees are free to become or remain members of, the
above-named union or any other labor organization except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. We will not discriminate
in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment against any employee because of membership in or
activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD.,
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Nathan R. Berke, for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, by Mr. Richard Ernst, of San Fran-
cisco, Calif., for Respondent.
Messrs. Goldstein, Anderson, Resner & Sawyer, by Mr. Allan Brotsky, of San
Francisco, Calif., for the charging parties.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges filed on April 1, 1949, by the individuals named in
the caption hereof, herein called the charging parties, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General
Counsel' and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region
(San Francisco, California) issued a complaint dated June 3, 1949, against Globe
'This term includes particularly counsel appearing at the hearing on behalf of the
General Counsel.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wireless, Ltd., herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in, and was engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National'
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, accompanied by a notice of hearing, were duly served upon
Respondent and the charging parties.
With respect to the alleged unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in
substance, that Respondent : (1) at various times between August 1948 and
January 1949, threatened its employees with discharge or demotion as a penalty
for their activity on behalf of American Communications Association, herein
called the A. C. A., affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations;
(2) on or about January 21, 1949, discharged one Charles Jones because of
his membership in and activities on behalf of A. C. A., and (3) from January 21
to 24, 1949, discharged the 19 other employees named in the caption hereof be-
cause they engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and mutual aid and protection.
On July 5, 1949, Respondent filed an answer admitting certain allegations of
the complaint with respect to the nature of its business, but denying that it had
engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at San Francisco, California, from
Julyy. 26 to 30, 1949, before Horace A. Ruckel, the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, Respondent,
and the charging parties were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties. The
Trial Examiner granted a motion by the General Counsel, concurred in by counsel
for the charging parties, to strike certain portions of Respondent's answer.'
At the conclusion of the hearing the undersigned granted a motion by the
General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof in formal matters, but
reserved ruling on a motion by Respondent to dismiss the complaint. This
-lotion is disposed of by the recommendations hereinafter made. The parties
waived oral argument and were granted until August 13 to file briefs and/or
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the undersigned. Subse-
quently, this time was extended by the Chief Trial Examiner to September 19. On
this date Respondent filed Proposed Findings of Fact.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Nevada corporation having its principal office and place of
business at San Francisco, California, and maintaining branch offices at New
York City, Honolulu, Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington, D. C., and Shanghai,
China. It is engaged in the transmission of international radio communications
between the United States and other countries. During the year 1948 Respondent
purchased communications equipment valued at approximately $50,000, about
50 percent of which was shipped into the State where used from other States
2 The portions which were stricken consisted , in substance , of allegations that the A. C. A.
had not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act requiring the filing of financial
and other reports and non -Communist affidavits.
GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD. 1273
of the United States. During the same year Respondent received recenue in
excess of $250,000 for its services in transmitting messages to and from conti-
nental United States and other parts of the world.
Respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The A. C. A. is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent. It is affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged discriminatory discharges
1. Charles Jones
Jones first came to work for Respondent on February 22, 1947. At the time of
his discharge on January 21, 1941, he was working as an automatic printer
operator under the supervision of Leo Bash, chief operator. Before entering
Respondent's employ Jones had had about 30 years' experience in the commu-
nications field, much of it as an automatic printer operator and point to point
operator, although on machines different from those used by Respondent. Dur-
ing the time he was employed by Respondent, Jones punched on all the circuits
in the operating room, including the Manila and Shanghai units. Most of his
work, however, was on the Shanghai circuit to which he was transferred from
the Manila circuit at his own request, shortly after coming to work.
Jones was a member of A. C. A. when he was employed by Respondent, and
continued his activities in behalf of that organization thereafter. A previously
executed contract between Respondent and A. C. A. expired on August 15, 1948,
and no new contract was entered into. The Respondent, however, continued in
effect most of the substantive provisions of the contract respecting wages, hours,
and working conditions. Jones was a member, along with other employees,
of the A. C. A.'s Grievance Committee which conducted negotiations for a new
contract and in addition discussed grievances with management in accordance
with the procedure outlined in the contract. He was, in addition, one of 8 shop
stewards among the approximately 20 union members in Respondent's operating
room. Jones' activity in the Union was, of course, well known to Respondent.
In January 1949, Jones bid for and obtained a transfer to the noon to 8 p. in.
watch, starting on January 17. His work assignments on this watch were the
usual ones and included the relief of other operators during their lunch periods,
and other miscellaneous work until 4: 30 p. in. From that time until the close
of the watch at 8 p. m. he punched messages on the Manila circuit. This circuit
is financially Respondent's most important one and carries the heaviest traffic.
It is busiest during the hours Jones was assigned to it because it covers the
close of business in San Francisco, when the greatest number of messages are
filed, and the opening of business in Manila when speedy delivery of messages
is of prime importance. On Jones' previous watch he had punched for the
most part on the Shanghai circuit where speed in punching, though desirable
as always, was not of first importance.
On January 19 Bruce, not a member of A. C. A,., called Bash's attention to
a form that Jones was using in transmitting certain messages on the Manila
circuit which was different from the form currently used by Respondent. Bash
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediately took the matter up with Jones and directed him to use the correct
form thenceforth, which Jones did. On the following day, January 20, Jones
reopened the discussion about the form with Bash, and remarked that he had
concluded that Bash was going to "pick (his) work to pieces" and that he did
not intend to put up with it. Later the same day, Bash and Jones had another
conversation in which Jones called Bruce a "fink" and objected to her having
gone to Bash instead of directly to him about the form he had used. Bash
objected to the application of this term to Bruce and a discussion took place
during which Jones accused Bash of having called him a Communist, to which
Bash replied that he had only called Jones a "fellow traveler." The argument
was heated and blows were narrowly averted.
Just prior to Jones' time to punch on the Manila circuit that afternoon, James
McDowell, Jones' immediate supervisor, reported to Bash that unless Jones im-
proved his speed McDowell would have to have an additional operator assigned
to that circuit. Bash then approached Jones and told him that his work was
not satisfactory so far as its quantity was concerned, that he would have to
punch faster, and that, instead of transmitting on the Manila circuit that eve-
ning, he was being assigned to the Shanghai circuit on the same watch for
about 2 weeks a where has was to practice punching during his idle moments.
Jones, according to his own testimony, told Bash that he considered the order to
practice an insult, and that he was punching as fast as he could and keep up
with his usual standard. Upon Bash's asking him if he would comply with the
order to practice while on the Shanghai circuit, Jones replied flatly that he would
not. Bash left Jones and prepared a report of the incident to James McPherson,
assistant manager, while Jones took over the Shanghai circuit. Jones admitted,
while testifying, that he did not practice while on the circuit, as Bash had di-
rected him to do.
Jones' place on the Manila circuit was taken by Malcolm Parks, chairman of
the shop committee for the A. C. A..4 who was transferred for that nurnose from.
the Shanghai circuit.
On the following morning , January 21, Bash conferred in person with McPher-
son, told him that he could not "take it" any longer from Jones, and that if he
were not disciplined he, Bash, would resign as chief operator. Later during that
morning, upon reporting for work, Jones was called to McPherson's office where
McPherson asked Jones if it was true that he refused to practice punching on the
Shanghai circuit as ordered by Bash, and Jones replied that it was, repeating as
the reason for his refusal that the order was intended only as an "insult." Jones,
together with Rudolph Niemi, who was present as the former's representative
told McPherson that Respondent was about to discharge the wrong man, that
Bash was causing all the "trouble" in the operating room, and that he should be
discharged instead of Jones. McPherson then informed Jones that his employ-
ment was terminated.
3 Jones' testimony is silent as to the length of time he was to spend on the Shanghai circuit,
and the finding that it was for about 2 weeks is based upon Bash's testimony, which the
undersigned credits on this point.
4 This finding is based upon Bash's testimony that upon transferring Jones to the Shanghai
circuit he told him to tell Parks to come over to the Manila circuit. The testimony of both
Jones and Parks is silent on this point, but it seems a reasonable inference that Bash's order
was complied with in this respect, and that Parks filled in for Jones on the Manila circuit.
There was no difference in pay between the two circuits.
s Respondent 's practice was to permit an employee with a grievance to be represented by
some other employee in lieu of a union representative , as had been the case before the
expiration of the 1947 contract.
GLOBE! WIRELESS, LTD. 1275
Conclusions as to Jones' discharge
Respondent advances as its reason for discharging Jones that he was insubor-
dinate in refusing to practice on the Shanghai circuit as ordered to do by Bash.
The General Counsel's contention is that he was discharged because of his union
activity. If this contention is to be upheld it would have to be on the theory that
Jones' refusal to comply with Bash's order was only the pretext for his discharge,
or that it was intended to provoke Jones into a breach of plant discipline. The
seriousness of the refusal , in and of itself, as affecting discipline can hardly be
denied.
There is no substantial evidence in the record that Bash's direction to Jones
was prompted by anything else than legitimate business considerations. Jones'
own reason for his refusal to obey Bash's instructions was, and is, simply that
he was punching at as great a speed as was consistent with accuracy, and that
lie was "insulted" by Bash's order to practice during his spare time on the
Shanghai circuit. Bash's reasonableness in so instructing Jones is not in issue,
except to the extent that a clearly unreasonable direction might argue that
Respondent was motivated by other considerations, to wit, Jones' activity on
behalf of the A. C. A. However, it should be borne in mind that Jones had
been on the noon to 8 p. in. watch, where his time was devoted mainly to the
important Manila circuit, for only a few days, and that it might reasonably
be expected that his punching would not be as satisfactory as it had been on
his previous watch where he had worked principally on the less important
Shanghai circuit. Moreover, Jones' transfer to the Shanghai circuit was stated
to be for only 2 weeks, and it in no sense represented a demotion. If Bash
meant to discriminate against Jones because of his activity in behalf of the
A. C. A. it is hardly likely that be would have transferred Parks from the
Shanghai circuit to take Jones' place on the Manila circuit. Parks was shop
chairman for the A. C. A. and, if anything, more active on behalf of that or-
ganization than Jones.
It is clear from the record that Bash, whether correctly or not, viewed the
A. C. A. as an organization influenced by Communists, and Jones himself as
a "fellow traveler." 9 Respondent similarly, it is evident from the entire record,
did not intend to deal with the A. C. A. if it could be avoided, or at least until
it had filed the affidavits required by the Act. It is manifest that these con-
siderations led to a very considerable hostility by Bash toward Jones, and it is
conceivable that they may have influenced Respondent in discharging him. It
would seem as much beside the point, however, to speculate to what extent
they may have motivated Bash, as it would be to speculate whether Jones or
the A. C. A. may have intended to disrupt and impede Respondent's operations
so as to render it more amenable to recognize the A. C. A. as the employees'
bargaining representative, as it had previously been.
The fact is that Jones flatly and admittedly disobeyed an order which on
its face was not only legitimate but reasonable. Neither the order itself nor
Respondent's enforcement of it by discharging Jones is shown by substantial
evidence to have been motivated by Respondent's dislike of the A. C. A. or Jones'
part in its activities, and the undersigned finds that they were not.
2. The strike in the operating room and the discharge of the strikers
Jones' discharge by Respondent had an immediate repercussion . Jones went
from McPherson 's office to a meeting of the A. C. A. scheduled at 1: 30 p. in.
6 Bash's antipathy to the A. C. A. Is hereinafter more fully discussed.
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for, members on the 4 p. m. to midnight shift. At this meeting the members
voted to protest Jones' discharge to management. Accordingly, at approximately
4: 30 p. in., Jones and Parks returned to the operating room where Parks de-
manded of Bash that Jones be reinstated. Bash replied that he himself had
not discharged Jones. The A. C. A. members then on watch, whose names are
included in the caption hereof, left their circuits and joined the group consisting
of Bash, Jones, and Parks. A general discussion followed during which Bash
was told that he "couldn't get away with" discharging Jones. Bash told the
operators to go back to their circuits, but instead they sat around in the oper-
ating room leaving the circuits unmanned. Bash informed McPherson of the
situation and McPherson took it up with Boatwright, Respondent's president.
Shortly after 5 p. m. Bash, upon orders from McPherson, again asked each of
the operators to return to his circuit. Each replied, in substance, that he would
do so only when Jones was reinstated in his job. In accordance with i1IcPherson's
instructions Bash then told the group that they were discharged.
Following this the employees went to McPherson's office. In reply to Mc-
Pherson's inquiry as to whether they were going to return to work, and his
statement that their jobs were waiting for them, he was told, as Bash had
been, that they would not work until Jones was put back. During the conver-
sation the employees urged that Respondent discharge Bash, instead of Jones,
which McPherson refused to do, again urging them to return to work. The
employees repeated their demand that Jones be reinstated as a condition of their
resuming work, and McPherson told them that they were discharged.
Another meeting of the A. C. A. took place that evening, attended by those
members on the 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. and midnight to 8 a. m. watches, as well as
those employees on the 4 p. in. to midnight watch who had just been discharged.
It was decided that another protest would be lodged with management by the
night shift during the change of watch. Shortly after midnight Parks, this
time accompanied by Albert Hinde, one of the previously discharged operators,
approached Bash and the events of the afternoon repeated themselves. The
A. C. A. operators on the night watch left their circuits and joined the group
around Bash. Parks, as spokesman, repeated the protest as to Jones' dis-
charge, and Bash answered that the matter was out of his hands. The operators
made it clear that none of them would return to work until and unless Jones
was reinstated. Upon Bash's failure to give any such assurance, the operators
sat around the operating room as had the group in the afternoon. Respondent
manned some of the circuits with supervisors and a few operators from the day
shift. Somewhat later, Bash told the group of operators that they were dis-
charged and ordered them to leave the premises, which they did.
3. The discharge of Guerrero, Wheelr, and Friend's
(a) Paul Guerrero
On Saturday evening, January 22, the day following the above events, Paul
Guerrero, an operator on the day watch, had a friend telephone the operating
room that he could not report to work at 8 a. in. Sunday, January 23, his next
day to work, because of illness. When Bash came on duty Sunday afternoon
he telephoned Guerrero to confirm the reason for his absence and was told
by Guerrero that he had a cold. Bash told him to report for duty immediately
and that he would be sent home if Bash was satisfied he was rick. Guerrero,
7 Guerrero and Wheeler were off duty on Friday January 21.
GLOBE' WIRELESS, LTD. 1277
however, did not report for duty until 8 a. m. on Monday, January 24. Upon his
arrival Bash asked Guerrero for a doctor's certificate attesting his illness the.
previous day, and when Guerrero stated that he had none Bash discharged him.
The undersigned finds it unnecessary to discuss the evidence as to whether
a doctor's certificate was generally required of employees when absent because
of sickness. Guerrero was an evasive and unconvincing witness, and the under-
signed does not regard his testimony that he was sick as credible. He ad-
mitted while testifying that he was at the A. C. A. meeting the evening before
his claimed illness of Saturday, that the telephone call to the operating room on
Saturday evening was made from his bedside, and that he was not too sick to
have telephoned himself, stating that he didn't know why he had not done so
except that it was more "convenient" to have a friend call.
It is likely that Guerrero wished to appear to support the other members of
the A. C. A. in their protest by not reporting for work, and that his illness was
only diplomatic. But whatever Guerrero's motives, Bash was justified in be-
lieving that he was feigning illness, and that he was aligning himself with his
fellow A. C. A. members in going on strike.
(b) Leslie Wheeler
On Sunday evening, January 23, Bash telephoned Leslie Wheeler, an operator
on the midnight to 8 a. m. watch. Bash's testimony is that he asked Wheeler
whether he was coming to work that evening as usual, urging him to do
so, and that Wheeler said that he would be in. Wheeler's testimony is that
Bash told him, in effect, that lie was discharged along with the others. The
undersigned finds that Bash's testimony on this point is in accord with the facts,
and that Wheeler should have understood that his job was open to him if he
wanted it, but that instead he preferred to support his fellow employees. There
would seem to have been no point in Bash's telephoning Wheeler unless it was
for the purpose of asking him to come to work. Moreover, both Bash and
Wheeler testified that the former reminded Wheeler that he was colored, and
"had two strikes on him" for this reason. There seems no reason to doubt
Bash's testimony that he meant it would be more difficult for Wheeler than for
other employees to obtain another job, and is consistent with Bash's urging him
to keep the one he had.
Wheeler, however, appears to have changed his mind and showed up in the
operating room at 8 a. in. on Monday, at the end of his usual watch, about the
same time that Guerrero and Lillie Friend, an operator whose discharge is next
discussed, arrived. He was met by Bash who reminded him that lie was sup-
posed to have reported at midnight on his circuit. The record is silent as to
what Wheeler responded. Bash, however, told Wheeler lie was discharged."
(c) Lillie Friend
At 8 a. m. on Monday morning, January 24, Friend, an operator on the day
shift, reported for her first scheduled watch following the happenings of the
previous Friday. As has been stated, she arrived at the operating room at the
same time as Guerrero and Wheeler. Bash asked Friend to go to work and a
conversation ensued in which Friend accused Bash of being unreasonable in
having discharged Jones and the other operators, and made it plain that she
8 A few days later, while on the picket line, both Guerrero and Wheeler received tele-
grams from Respondent saying that it wished to review the two discharges, and requesting
them to see McPherson. Both ignored the invitation.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supported the others in their protest. Bash told her that she, too, was dis-
charged.
Conclusions
It is abundantly clear from the record that the concerted action of the
charging parties excepting Jones, in refusing to perform their work until Jones
was reinstated, constituted a strike. Inasmuch as Jones' discharge has been
found not to have been occasioned by his activities on behalf of the A. C. A. but
for legitimate business reasons, it follows that the strike of the other employees,
in protest was not an unfair labor practice strike. It is clear that any or all
of them could have had their jobs back at any time before they were filled by
new employees. It is not in dispute that the strike is still in' effect, that there
has been no request for reinstatement following the strike, and that Respondent
has filled the strikers' jobs with other and permanent employees. In these cir-
cumstances, and under familiar decisions of the Board, Respondent is not obli-
gated now to reinstate the strikers.
B. Other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
Sylvia Pottle was a service clerk on the 4 p. in. to midnight shift, and one of
those who participated in the protest of Jones' discharge on January 21. Shortly
after 5 o'clock that afternoon, after the group surrounding Bash had broken up,
Bash followed Pottle and Pauline Smith, a traffic clerk, to the locker room and
engaged the former in conversation. Bash, according to Pottle's testimony, sup-
ported in all essentials by that of Smith, told Pottle that he "felt terrible" about
the incidents of that afternoon, but that she was "backing the wrong union," to
which Pottle replied that she did not think so. Bash went on to say, according
to Pottle, that Respondent had "to get rid of the Communists," that the A. C. A.
would never come back into the plant, and that if Pottle was wise she would get
out of the A. C. A. "while the getting was good." Bash testified that he did not
recall having this conversation. The undersigned found Pottle and Smith to
be credible witnesses, and accepts their testimony as true.
Both Pottle and Bash testified that the latter telephoned Pottle on the night of
January 23 during which Bash read to her his report to McPherson previously
referred to, describing Jones' recalcitrance, and sought her approval of it.
According to Pottle the conversation lasted 40 minutes. She testified to it, in
part, as follows :
Q. Well, as best you recall it, what he said and what you said.
A. . . . He says, "If I knew . . . that this letter would have caused such
a bombshell," he says, "I never would have submitted it in the first place."
Q. What did you say to that?
A. I said "Leo, that is the trouble with you, you are so hotheaded, you do
things before you think." I says, "That is what has been the trouble right
along." He said, "I know it," he said, "I realize that, and he says, but he
says, "It just had to come to a head sometime . . .
.. . "Well," I says, "I think I have a general idea of what it was all about,
I think the Company was going to start with Chuck Jones and go right down
the line."
He says, "You have a general idea."
Bash, although admitting while testifying that he told Pottle that the A. C. A.
should have signed the non-Communist affidavits required by the Act, and other-
GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD. 1279
wise criticized the A. C. A., stated that he did not recall having said that the
trouble "had to come to a head sometime ," and denied that he said in. response
to Pottle 's statement concerning starting the discharges with Jones, that she
"had the general . idea."
The entire record shows Bash to be of an excitable and undiplomatic tempera-
ment, albeit the undersigned did not find him generally unreliable as a witness.
The statements attributed to him by Pottle who impressed the undersigned fa-
vorably, are in keeping with his excitability , his dislike of the A. C. A., and his
willingness to use any stigma to beat a dogma . The undersigned finds that he
made the statements in substance as testified to by Pottle.
Nevertheless , the undersigned does not find Bash 's statements , to Pottle. either
in the locker room or over . the telephone to be, in the circumstances of this case„
violative of the Act. His.statement that Pottle should get out of the A. C. A..
."while the getting is good," is equivocal and does not , in the undersigned ' s view,.
constitute or imply • a "threat . of reprisal or force or promise of benefit" proscribed!
,by. Section 8 (c) of :the Act. .
.With respect to his telephone . conversation with Pottle ,. his statement that
she "had ( the) general idea", was in acquiescence to Pottle's own, suggestion„ that
it was , the Respondent's intention to discriminate against A . C. A. members
generally . It has been found above that such was not, in fact, Respondent's
purpose in discharging Jones , and while this does not in the usual circumstances
exculpate a supervisor in making a statement to that effect , whether true or not,
it does tend to emphasize the fact that the suggestion that Jones was discrimi-
nated against did not originate with Bash , but with Pottle. He finds that Bash's
statements to Pottle were not violative of the Act.'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Communications Association, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. Respondent, Globe Wireless, Ltd., is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent, Globe Wireless, Ltd., has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the complaint
herein he dismissed.
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 to any other part of the record or proceeding (includ-
ing rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
v In the same category are other statements of Bash which, although hostile to the
A. C. A., do not contain a threat of reprisal or force, or promise of benefit, such as those
testified to by Lorraine Conger and Daniel Sheaffer, to the effect that if they inisted on
tying themselves to "the Communist kite" they "could sink with it." The record reflects
various statements by Bash of this nature.
1280 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Inter-
mediate 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 prompty 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
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 28th day of October 1949.
HORACE A. RUCKEL,
Trial Examiner.