H. R. Terryberry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 642 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of CHARLES R. ARMSTRONG AND A. PARKER TERRYBERRY,
D/B/A H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL JEWELRY
WORKERS UNION, AFL, LOCAL No. 3 -
Case No. 7-CA--n.-Decided February 13, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 17, 1949, Trial Examiner Joseph L. Hektoen issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and 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 Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.2 The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Murdock].
2 In substantial agreement with the finding of the Trial Examiner , to which no exception
was taken , we find that all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its
Grand Rapids , Michigan , plant, excluding office and clerical employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. .
2 By affirming the Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondent has, since on and after
February 27, 1948, refused to bargain collectively with the Union , we do not imply that the
Respondent 's conduct prior to that date was not in violation of the Act . However, we find
it unnecessary to pass upon the question of when the violation first occurred.
88 NLRB No. 133.
642
C
H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY 643
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Charles R. Arm-
strong and A. Parker Terryberry, d/b/a H. R. Terryberry Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, its partners, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Jewelry
Workers Union, AFL, Local No. 3, as the exclusive representative of
all production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Grand
Rapids, Michigan, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of Interna-
tional Jewelry Workers Union, AFL, Local No. 3, to negotiate for
or to represent the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, as
their exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Jewelry
Workers Union, AFL, Local No. 3, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other terms or conditions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody it in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked Appendix A 4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
shall, after being duly executed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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 Seventh Region (Detroit,
Michigan), in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of the
receipt of this Order what steps the Respondent has-taken to comply
herewith.
i In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit 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."
882191-51-42
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : -
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with
the efforts Of INTERNATIONAL JEWELRY WORKERS UNION, AFL,
LOCAL No. 3 or any other labor organization, to negotiate for or
represent our employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all of our em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding be reached, embody it in
a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, excluding office
and clerical employees and supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action.
CHARLES R. ARMSTRONG AND A. PARKER TERRYBERRY,
D/B/A H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY
Employer.
By -------------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------.
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. George A. Sweeney, for the General Counsel.
Mr. John W. Cummiskey (McCobb, Heaney and Dunn ), of Grand Rapids, Mich.,
for the Respondent. .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on August 16, 1948,3 by International Jewelry
Workers Union, AFL, Local No. 3, herein called the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General
Counsel 2 and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region ( Detroit,
Michigan ), issued his complaint dated August 10, 1949, against Charles R. Arm-
strong and A. Parker Terryberry, d/b/a H. R. Terryberry Company, herein
I The original charge was filed on January 12, 1948.
' This term includes the General Counsel ' s representative at the hearing.
H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY 645
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and charges, accompanied by 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 : (1) from on or about February 27, 1948, and at, all times
thereafter, failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit; and (2) thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent thereafter filed an answer admitting the allegations of the
complaint respecting the nature of its business, denying the commission of any
unfair labor practices, and setting up certain affirmative defenses which are
hereinafter considered.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 30 and 31, 1949, at Grand
Rapids, Michigan, before the undersigned, Josef L. Hektoen, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the
Respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues , was afforded all parties.
At the close of the hearing, the General Counsel and counsel for the Respond-
ent made brief statements of position on the record. A brief has been received
from counsel for the Respondent.3
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Charles R. Armstrong and A. Parker Terryberry, d/b/a H. R.
Terryberry Company, is a copartnership consisting of Charles R. Armstrong and
A. Parker Terryberry. It is engaged at Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the manu-
facture and sale of college and high-school rings and fraternal jewelry. During
the year 1947, it bought raw materials consisting chiefly of gold and semi-
precious stones, valued in excess of $50,000, more than 70 percent thereof being
obtained from sources outside the State of Michigan. During the same year,
it sold finished products valued in excess of $200,000, of which less than 25
percent was shipped to points outside the State of Michigan. The Respondent
admits that it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL, Local No. 3, is a labbr organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
3 Counsel for the Respondent made no motion to dismiss the complaint at the hearing ; he
made such a motion in his brief, however. It is disposed of as hereinafter set forth.
646 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III, THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain
A. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein
Upon a petition filed by the Union on October 27, 1947,' an agreement for con-
sent election entered into by the parties on November 4, and approved on Novem-
ber 5, and the results of an election conducted by him pursuant thereto on
November 13,° the Regional Director for the Seventh Region on November 21
issued his consent determination of representatives finding that the Union was
the exclusive representative of the employees of the Respondent in the appro-
priate unit defined in the consent agreement.
The undersigned finds, pursuant to the consent agreement, that all production
and maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding office and clerical
employees and supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. He further
finds that on November 13, 1947, the Union was, at all times thereafter has
been, the exclusive representative of all of the employees of the Respondent in
the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act!
B. The chronology of events
Immediately preceding the election on November 13, H. R. Terryberry, until
shortly thertofore the sole proprietor of the Respondent, but still a dominant
figure therein, caused to be banded to each employee the following documents,
the first two signed by him and the third by the Respondent, on the dates borne
by them : "An Important Personal Message for You" dated November 6, "Im-
portant Information for You" dated November 10, and an untitled two-page
communication dated November 11.
In the first, he told of having disposed of his interest in the Respondent "on
the doctor's recommendation," stated that he had determined to try to carry on
in the face of the Union's ominous appearance on the scene' because of his
belief that intelligent people could work out their problems "without a strange
third party coming into the picture," pointed out competitors of the Respondent
used the incentive plan, and finally urged that the matter be given "careful and
prayerful thought" by the employees. In the second, Terryberry reviewed his
findings of conditions in other shops, pointed out that the Respondent's employees
were doing nicely as to.pay and working conditions, stated that the presence of
a union in the shop would cause expense to all concerned, and reiterated the
t Docketed as Case No . 7-RC-7.
E The tally of ballots disclosed that of some 26 eligible voters, 25 cast valid ballots, 23 for
the Union and 2 challenged.
6 The answer of the Respondent denied the Union's majority status and stated that the
Respondent would adduce evidence accordingly at the hearing . However, it adduced none
nor did it seek to do so. Its brief does not advert to the matter.
7 Terryberry referred to an "application in July," apparently by the Union . The record
is silent as to this. It reveals , however, that representatives of the Union and of the
Respondent met late in August or early in September 1947, and that the Union submitted
certain wage and classification proposals . The meeting was evidently unproductive, the
next step having been the filing on October 27 of the Union 's petition.
H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY 647
hope that matters might be adjusted without intervention of "third party
strangers." In his final communication, Terryberry stated that the Respondent
would hold to its incentive plan "whatever the consequences, even an extended
strike" ; that any other plan would mean more money for less work for the em-
ployees and that the Respondent would never "consider such a program under any
circumstances"; that paid holidays were unsound because "Businesses are not run
by paying money for work not done" ; that the Union's apprentice program was
unsound ; that the Union had already caused the Respondent to lose $25,000 of
business because of "mental strain and time lost" and that its presence in the
plant would cause further expense to all parties; that "Our factory isn't big
enough to go through all the red tape of a union, and there isn't any need for a
union"; that the employees were urged to vote in the election, but that "We'll
have a much happier place, to all work together if you vote against the Union";
and finally, that there would be no retaliation by the Respondent because the
employees exercised their franchise.
On November 14, the day after the Union overwhelmingly won the election,
its representatives met with those of the Respondent. The Union submitted a
form of proposed contract, but so far as is revealed by the record, nothing con-
crete was accomplished. On November 20, at a further meeting, provisions of
the proposed contract and the Respondent's incentive plan were discussed. At
a meeting on November 28, the Respondent submitted a counterproposal. At a
meeting on December 5, the Union submitted a second proposed contract con-
taining certain concessions. Further inconclusive meetings were held on De-
cember 11, 18, and 30, 1947.
On December 31, the Respondent submitted in writing to the union bargaining
representatives certain proposals made by it at the meeting of the day before.
They included increases of 5 to 20 cents per hour "where inequalities exist" ; a
contribution of $16 per year per employee by the Respondent "toward an in-
surance program" ; a provision that all all jewelry workers "participate in the in-
centive program," minor adjustments being contemplated in such program after
further study ; and a provision that conditions then prevailing in the shop con-
tinue until further notice.
On January 20, 1948, the parties met again. In substitution of the incentive
plan, the Union agreed to prepare and submit certain "job standards for each
classification" in connection with its proposal that the employees perform a given
amount of work for a given hourly rate of pay. A further meeting was scheduled
for January 22." That meeting was not held.. There is conflicting testimony as
to why and by whom it was postponed. Upon the basis of Union Organizer
Peter McGavin's testimony that the Union was unable to complete the prepara-
tion of such job standards until early in February, the undersigned concludes and
finds that the meeting was postponed by the Union. The record is confused as
to when the next meeting took place. Based upon the statements of A. Parker
Terryberry, on behalf of the Respondent, in a letter mailed to all employees and
dated February 27, 1948, the undersigned is persuaded and finds that it occurred
during the first part of February and after receipt by the employees of the
Respondent's communication to them of February 4. That two-page document,
accompanied by a schedule of base rates bearing the same date and containing
certain unilateral changes in wage rates, was, entitled "CONDITIONS" and
8 At this point In the negotiations , as revealed by the record , further discussion of fringe
issues such as vacations , holiday pay , and the like had, at the insistence of the Respondent,
become dependent upon agreement respecting wages.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provided, among other things, that all production workers would work on the
incentive basis, that certain of them who had theretofore been on an hourly rate
would shortly be returned to the incentive basis, and that still others would be
transferred to that basis when studies had been made ; that all other conditions
would remain unchanged except that the Respondent agreed to provide $16 per
employee annually "toward an insurance program with a company of our mutual
choice" ; and that "In view of the satisfactory relationships that have always
existed, it is our desire that no wage contract be entered into."
Thereafter the February meeting of the parties took place. The representa-
tives of the Union again asked that, since it was injurious to the health of the
workers, the incentive plan be dropped.° On account of the letter of February 4,
the Union's proposed job standards were not submitted to the Respondent.1°
A further meeting was scheduled for February 25. Organizer McGavin was
unable to be present, but on that day telegraphed Elmer Schmelz, chairman of
the union bargaining committee, to meet with John W. Cummiskey, counsel for
the Respondent, "regarding wages only." Schmelz credibly testified without
denial, and the undersigned finds, that when he telephoned Cummiskey to make
arrangements for such meeting he was informed by Cummiskey's office that
Cummiskey had canceled it.
On February 27, the Respondent sent by special delivery a letter to all em-
ployees and their wives. It stated, among other things, that as the result of
investigation by the Respondent it had been determined by it that the employees'
state as to wages and working conditions was better than that of the employees
of the Respondent's direct competitors ; that the February 4 "CONDITIONS"
had received a cool reception by the Union ; that the Union had undertaken to
furnish job standards, but that the Respondent understood that it now had no
intention of doing so; that the incentive system, since it rewards persons for
the work they do, was "a fundamentally American principle" ; that the Febru-
ary 4 proposal was the Respondent's final offer ; that there would be no more
meetings ; that if the employees were not satisfied, it was their privilege to seek
employment elsewhere ; and that the new arrangement would be effective as
of March 8.
Thereafter several informal meetings were had with A. Parker Terryberry
including one at which the insurance program was further discussed. Em-
ployees Schmelz and Glenn Link, also a member of the union bargaining com-
mittee, credibly testified without denial, and the undersigned finds, that when
they asked Terryberry for permission to have a union representative explain the
insurance program of Union Life Insurance Company, an American Federation
of Labor concern, because the premiums charged by the companies proposed by
the Respondent were higher than those charged by the union company, Terry-
berry refused, saying that the Respondent wanted nothing to do with the
Union, and the matter was thereupon dropped.
Early in August 1949, the employees Schmelz and Link met with Terryberry.
They stated that the Union had withdrawn its objections to the incentive plan
and was anxious to enter into a contract with the Respondent. Terryberry
replied that the Respondent preferred not to be obligated by a signed contract
and preferred to deal with the employees on an individual basis. At the open-
ing of the hearing, asked if the Respondent then refused to bargain with the
Union, its counsel replied in the affirmative.
6 Based on the Respondent 's letter of February 27.
10 Based upon Organizer MeGavin's credible testimony.
H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY 649
C. Conclusions
It is abundantly clear that the Respondent entered into negotiations with the
Union with the fixed purpose of retaining the incentive plan, refusing to deviate
from conditions then obtaining in the shop, and refusing to enter into a signed
agreement with the Union. H. R. Terryberry's preelection communications to
the employees constituted its explicit undertaking to such effect. Thus the
November 11 letter specifically stated that the incentive plan would be retained
whatever the consequences, even an extended strike, and that any other plan
would never be considered by the Respondent under any circumstances. It also
demonstrated the Respondent's implacable opposition to paid holidays and other
fringe issues. When negotiations began, as is related above, the Respondent's
position did not change and on February 27, 1948, having canceled the February
25 meeting at which "wages only" were to be discussed, it promulgated an in-
centive plan more all-embracing than before, froze shop conditions, broke off
further negotiations, and invited those who disapproved to get out. In a neces-
sarily informal conference after its abrogation of further meetings with the
union committee, the Respondent again made plain its refusal to bargain by
rejecting the Union's request for negotiations respecting a contract after the
Union had withdrawn its objections to the incentive plan, on the ground that it
did not want to be bound. It reiterated its position at the hearing.
Thus the Respondent's contention that an impasse between the parties existed
because of the Union's intransigent position on the incentive plan is without
merit. It is true that the Union did not submit its proposed job standards during
the negotiations. Initially, it was not ready. When it was, the Respondent's
letter of February 4, stating that it did not wish to enter into a wage contract,
had rendered any such submission nugatory. Furthermore, there is nothing to
show that, had the Respondent not canceled the February 25 meeting at which
"wages only" were to be discussed, the Union would not have made a submission
thereat. Finally, it is quite apparent that no matter what the Union had pro-
posed, its action would have been without effect, "H. R. Terryberry Company"
having on November 11, 1947, stated that under no circumstances would it devi-
ate from its plan. No impasse having existed, the Respondent's further conten-
tion that after the alleged impasse had been reached, the Respondent was justified
in its unilateral promulgation of February 27, is likewise found to be without
merit.
The undersigned finds that the Respondent by its February 27 unilateral
promulgation of changes in wage rates and in respect of other matters, by re-
fusing to further meet with the Union at a time when it owed a duty to do so,
and by. its refusal to negotiate with the Union for a written agreement respecting
wages, has, since on and after February 27, 1948, failed and refused to bargain
collectively with the Union in violation of the provisions of the Act and has
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain
unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively upon
request with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL , Local No. 3 , is a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent , excluding
office and clerical employees and supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge , discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or to effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
3. International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL , Local No. 3 , was on November
13, 1947, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of
all of the employees in such appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on February 27, 1948, and at all times thereafter , to bargain
collectively with International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL , Local No. 3, as
the exclusive representative of all of its employees in said appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has 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.
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 Respond-
ent, Charles R. Armstrong and A. Parker Terryberry , d/b/a H. R. Terryberry
Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan , its partners , officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with international Jewelry Workers
Union, AFL , Local No. 3 , as the exclusive representative of all of its employees
in the above -described appropriate unit;
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of International Jewelry
Workers Union , AFL, Local No. 3, to negotiate for or to represent the employees
in the aforesaid bargaining unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent.
H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY 651
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Jewelry Workers
Union, AFL, Local No. 3, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment,
and if an understanding be reached, embody it in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly executed by
the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be 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 Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan),
in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Inter-
mediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
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 excep-
tions 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 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.
Signed at Washington, D. C., this 17th day of November 1949.
JOSEPH L. HET TOFN,
Trial Examiner.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, we hereby notify our employees. that :
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts
Of INTERNATIONAL JEWELRY WORKERS UNION, AFL, LOCAL No. 3, or any other
labor organization, to negotiate for or represent our employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all of our employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding be reached,
embody it in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, excluding office and cleri-
cal employees and supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action.
CHARLES R. ARMSTRONG AND A. PARKER TERRYBERRY,
D/B/A H. R. TERRYBERRY COMPANY,
Employer.
By ------------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.