Jat Transportation Corp. Et Al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

780 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the foregoing, we find that all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant,
including shipping and receiving employees, the floorgirls, the head
cutter, and the head shipping clerk, but excluding office employees,
salesmen, professional. employees, guards, the floorman and floorlady,
,and other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
Jat Transportation Corp . et al. and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs; Warehousemen, and Helpers, Taxi
Drivers and Terminal Employees , Local Union 826,1 Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 2-RC-9948-50, 2-RC-9953-57, 2-RC-9960, 2-RC-
9964-66, 2-RC-9968-77, 2-RC-9979-89, 2-RC-9991-93, 2-RC-
9995-98, 2-RC-10000-03, 2-RC-10005, 2-RC-10007-08, 2-RC-
10013, 2-RC-10015-19, 2-RC=10021-25, 2-RC-10027-28, and
2-RC-10290. August 23, 1960
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton A. Shaham,
hearing officer.2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. In this proceed-
ing, 71 petitions were initially consolidated for hearing; of these, 9
petitions were withdrawn by the Petitioner and 1 case was severed
from the consolidated proceeding.$ Thereafter, hearings were com-
pleted in the remaining 61 cases, the parties filed briefs there, and
requested oral argument .4
1 The Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 On the basis of contractual interest , the following labor organizations were allowed
to intervene : New Yorker Taxi Workers Association in New Yorker Fleet Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2-RC-9970 ; 3999 Taxi Cab Drivers Association in Jackson Maintenance Corp.,
et al ., Case No. 2-RC-9977 ; and Metropolitan Taxi Workers Union in 57th Street
Management Corp., et al., Case No . 2-RC-10290.
.8 The Employers filed interlocutory motions for leave to appeal from the hearing
officer's denial of their motions to sever each of the cases . The motions for leave to
appeal were denied by the Board in its order of March 8, 1960, without prejudice to
renewal at a later time. These motions were renewed at the close of the hearing
thereafter . As all the cases remaining in this proceeding have common issues, the
Employers ' motions for severance are hereby denied.
4 As the record and the briefs of the parties adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties , the requests for oral argument are hereby denied.
128 NLRB No. 95.
JAT TRANSPORTATION CORP. ET AL. 781
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. All the Employers in this proceeding are engaged in the taxicab
business in New York City, operating from 30 to 500 taxicabs each.
The Employers, named herein at Appendix A, are operating cor-
porations for approximately 2,000 other corporations and individuals
that own taxicabs. Except as to the Employer in Vernon Operating
Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 2-RC-9991, the parties stipulated that each
of the Employers named herein, together with the corporations and
individuals that own taxicabs operated by each Employer, respec-
tively, constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
Vernon Operating Co., Inc.,' is owned and operated by a number of
corporations that own taxicabs. Vernon acts as purchasing agent
in buying cabs for these corporations; however, each corporation signs
its own sales contract after the purchase is arranged. Dispatchers
are hired by Vernon and they dispatch all taxicabs on its behalf for
the various owner corporations. All cabdrivers are hired and dis-
charged by the dispatchers, and Vernon has a single labor relations
policy. A pool of casual drivers is maintained by Vernon and such
drivers are interchanged as needed between the taxicab owners. Me-
chanics, washers, and office help for the garage are employed by
Vernon. Receipts are collected by it daily and allocated to the owners.
All gasoline, oil, and grease are purchased and tires are rented by
Vernon for the corporations owning cabs. All Government forms
are completed by Vernon, and social security and withholding tax
contributions are made by it. Vernon prepares W-2 income tax forms
on behalf of all the owner corporations, and it is named as the em-
ployer in individual driver income tax returns. We find that each of
the Employers herein named, together with the corporations and
individuals that own the taxicabs operated by each Employer, re-
spectively, each constitute a single employer within the meaning of
the Act.'
Each Employer operates independently of all others. With the
exception of four Employers, hereinafter identified, during 1959,
each Employer purchased gasoline, which originated outside the State
of New York, in amounts ranging from $12,000 to $275,000. The
other four Employers purchased supplies and materials, originating
outside the State of New York, as follows : Gaar Service Corp. (Case
No. 2-RC-10019) purchased, during 1959, gasoline, oil, and tires
S Hereinafter referred to as Vernon.
6 The Employers moved to dismiss certain taxicab owners from the case on the ground
that they did not receive adequate notice of hearing . During the hearing, on or about
December 17 and 18, 1959, notices of hearing were served by mail on certain corpora-
tions and individuals that own taxicabs operated by certain operating Employers herein.
The notices called for appearance at the hearing on December 18, 1959. No operating
Employer , as distinguished from a taxicab owner, was thereby added to the proceeding.
All operating Employers herein were parties to the proceeding from the outset There
is no contention that they did not receive adequate notice of hearing. Under the cir-
cumstances , we deny the motion to dismiss.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
valued at $18,728; in 1958, National Transportation Co., Inc. (Case
No. 2-RC-9986), received shipments of taxicabs valued in excess of
$500,000, and it has on order, for shipment in 1960, taxicabs valued in
excess of $500,000; in 1959, Yankee Service Corp. (Case No. 2-RC-
10021) and 57th Street Management Corp. (Case No. 2-RC-10290)
received shipments of taxicabs valued at $250,000 and $500,000,
respectively.
The Employers moved to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground
that their operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of
the Act. We find no merit in the Employers' contention that their
operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act
because all supplies and materials purchased by them are bought from
local dealers and such supplies and materials come to rest within
the State of New York before being transported to each Employer.'
We find that all Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act as each has a substantial inflow of supplies and
materials originating from sources outside the State of New York
where they are engaged in business.' Accordingly, the Employers'
motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are hereby denied.
In view of the foregoing and as each Employer does annual gross
volume of business in excess of $500,000, we find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein'
2. The Employers contend that the Petitioner is not a "labor organi-
zation" within the meaning of the Act because it is governed by a
trusteeship which is presumed to be invalid under Section 304(c) of
Title III of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959. For the reasons stated in Terminal System, Inc., et al., 127
NLRB 979, we rej ect this contention.
The Employers assert that the trusteeship under which the Pe-
titioner is operated was not created pursuant to any authority set
forth in the constitution and bylaws of its International union, as
required by Section 302 of Title III of the Labor-Management .Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and that the Petitioner has never
had an election of officers as required by Section 401(b) of Title IV
of that Act and hence the Petitioner is not a valid labor organization.
We reject these contentions as Section 603 (b) of that Act in effect pro-
vides that the provisions of the Act relied upon shall not be controlling
in determining whether the Petitioner is a qualified labor organization
for the purposes of this proceeding. For the reasons indicated in
Terminal System, Inc., supra, we find that the Petitioner is a labor
'Pioneer Holding Company d/b/a Blue and White Cab Co., 126 NLRB 956; Cab
Services, Inc. d/b/a Red and White Airway Cab Company , 123 NLRB 83; Howell
Chevrolet Company v. N.L.R.B., 346 U.S. 482.
8 Id.
Pioneer Holding Company d/b/a Blue and White Cab Co., supra; Cab Services Inc.
d/b/a Red and White Airway Cab Company, supra.
JAT TRANSPORTATION CORP. ET AL. 783
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
We find that the labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employers moved to dismiss the petitions herein on the
grounds that the Petitioner's original showing of interest is inade-
quate, and that Petitioner has made no adequate showing of interest
to support the addition of certain taxicab owners during the course
of this proceeding. The motion to dismiss on the first ground is here-
by denied for the reasons stated in Terminal System, Inc., supra. As
to the second ground for the motions to dismiss, it appears that the
addition of taxicab owners did not increase the number of employees
involved herein. As we have found that the Petitioner made an ade-
quate showing of interest as to the employees involved herein, the
Employers' motions to dismiss on the second ground is also hereby
denied.10
In 57th Street Management Corp., et al., Case No. 2-RC-10290,
the Employer contends that its collective-bargaining agreement with
Metropolitan Taxi Workers Union, an intervenor herein, constitutes
a bar to an election in that case. The agreement in question is effective
from February 1, 1958, until January 31, 1960, and is automatically
renewable for 2-year periods unless notice is given by either party.
The parties agreed to extend the terms of their agreement, "pending
the termination of this proceeding." The petition in this case was
filed on October 1, 1959, 126 days prior to the original expiration date
of the agreement. As the petition was filed more than 60 days but not
over 150 days prior to the terminal date of the contract, the petition
is timely filed, and consequently the agreement is not a bar to an
election in this case."
In New Yorker Fleet, Inc., et al., Case No. 2-RC-9970, the Em-
ployer contends that its collective-bargaining agreement with New
Yorker Taxi Workers Association, an intervenor herein, is a bar to an
election in that case. The term of that agreement runs from Febru-
ary 1, 1959, through January 31, 1961. It covers commissions, work-
ing conditions, and fringe benefits of all taxicab drivers of the
Employer. We find that this agreement is a bar to a representation
election in New Yorker Fleet, Inc., supra, and the petition in that
proceeding shall be dismissed.
"At the close of the hearing , the Employers renewed motions to dismiss the petitions
herein on the grounds that the Board (1) exceeded its authority , ( 2) deprived the
Employers of due process of law, ( 3) violated the Constitution of the United States,
(4) violated its own rules and regulations , ( 5) violated the Administrative Procedure
Act, and ( 6) failed to apply its rules and regulations without discrimination 'or to apply
said rules and regulations uniformly . Insofar as these motions relate to showing of
interest, they are disposed of above . If the motions relate to other matters they lack
specificity . Consequently , we find no merit in these motions and they are hereby denied.
" Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Except as to the employees of New Yorker Fleet, Inc., we find that
questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of
certain employees of the Employers herein within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests units of "all taxi drivers working regu-
larly at least three days a week, excluding watchmen and guards,
mechanics, all clerical and maintenance employees, all taxi drivers
working less than three days a week and all supervisory personnel
within the meaning of Act." It contends that drivers working less
than 3 days a week have an insufficient interest in the conditions of
employment in the taxicab industry either to be included in the bar-
gaining unit or to be eligible to vote for representatives. Otherwise,
in agreement as to the requested units, the Employers contend that all
regular part-time drivers should be included in the units and be
eligible to vote.12
The Employer herein 13 operates from 30 to 500 taxicabs in the city
of New York and environs, 2 shifts a day, 7 days a week. They em-
ploy from 73 to 1,191 drivers working 5 or 6 days a week, and from 17
to 308 drivers working 1 through 4 days a week. These drivers are
generally classified by the Employers as full-time drivers (working
12 The parties stipulated that casual employees and employees of individual cab owner-
drivers shall be excluded from the unit . Accordingly , we will exclude them from the
unit.
1s As the Petitioner waived further cross-examination and agreed to accept as true
written statements of the Employers as to the nature of their taxicab operations, the
hearing officer, during the course of the hearing , directed the Employers, over their
objections , to submit such written statements in lieu of oral testimony . Contending
that such procedure violated their rights under Section 7(c) of the Administrative
Procedure Act and Section 102 66 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the
Employers request that the case be remanded to permit them to present oral testimony
as to the nature of their operations . We find no merit in these contentions. The
adjudication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act have no application to
proceedings for certification of employee representatives . As the Petitioner waived its
right to cross -examination and agreed to accept as true written statements of the
Employers as to the nature of their operations , the Employers were not prejudiced by
the requirement that they submit the evidence in question in writing. Accordingly, we
deny the Employer 's request that the case be remanded for the taking of oral testimony
in this regard.
On January 6, 1960, as Indicated above, the hearing officer directed all Employers to
submit the aforesaid written evidence of operations . On January 18, 1960, the hearing
officer directed that such written evidence be submitted within 6 weeks . On March 3,
1960, this deadline was extended until the close of the hearing, which occurred on April
12, 1960. At the close of the hearing , written evidence of operations had been sub-
mitted for 16 of the Employers . The Employers objected to this procedure on the
ground that the deadlines set afforded insufficient time for compilation and presentation
of the written evidence As the Employers were given adequate opportunity to submit
the aforesaid evidence , we find no merit in these objections . In view of our decision
herein, which accords with the contentions of the Employers as to inclusion of regular
part- time drivers , the Employers who did not submit written evidence as to the nature of
their operations were, in any event, not prejudiced by the aforesaid limitations upon
them with respect to the introduction of evidence.
As the Petitioner did not establish that operations of other Employers in this
proceeding differed in any respect from those of the 16 Employers who submitted evi-
dence of their operations according to the aforesaid procedure , we make our findings as
to the operations of all Employers in this proceeding upon the evidence submitted by
the aforesaid 16 Employers.
JAT TRANSPORTATION CORP. ET AL. 785
in the same cab each day), "steady extra" drivers (working full-time,
but rotating to various cabs to relieve other drivers), and regular
part-time drivers (working 1 through 4 days a week). At most of
the Employers' garages, drivers working only 1 or 2 days a week work
on Saturday or Sunday, or both. All Employers, except one, do not
employ casual drivers.
Most drivers who work for the Employers herein from 1 through 4
days a week have substantial length of service with a single Employer.
A tabulation of such length of service of drivers working 1 through 4
days a week, for those Employers who submitted evidence regarding
their operations,14 shows the following : 8 drivers had over 20 years'
service; 15 drivers had 15 to 20 years' service; 56 drivers had 10 to 15
years' service; 92 drivers had 5 to 10 years' service; 447 drivers had
1 to 5 years' service; 183 drivers had 6 months to 1 year of service;
and 172 drivers had less than 6 months' service. In addition to the
above, 39 drivers, working 1 through 4 days a week, had service up
to 1 year but the exact period was not given, and 67 additional drivers
had service of undetermined length in excess of 1 year. Most of the
drivers whose length of service is tabulated above worked 1 or 2 days
a week, rather than 3 or 4 days a week, with the following 2 excep
tions: of 308 part-time drivers (those working 1 through 4 days a
week) at National Transportation Co., Inc. (Case No. 2-RC-9986),
129 drivers worked 1 or 2 days a week; and, of 118 part-time drivers
at 57th Street Management Corp. (Case No. 2-RC-10290), 52 drivers
worked 1 or 2 days a week.
All drivers are paid 44 percent of gross revenues shown on the
meter, except that two Employers pay 45 percent. Drivers working
1 or 2 days a week are paid the same commission rates as all other
drivers; social security and withholding tax deductions are made on
the same basis for all drivers.
There are no differences in shifts or in hours worked between 1- and
2-day drivers, on the one hand, and other drivers. Supervision of
drivers is the same regardless of number of days worked. Equipment
operated is the same for all drivers. All drivers are hired by the same
method and no Employer, except Vernon Operating Co., Inc. (Case
No. 2-RC-9991), hires casual drivers.
Most Employers pay a vacation or Christmas bonus to drivers work-
ing in a range from 200 to 250 days a year. This precludes payment
of such bonuses to drivers working 3 days a week as well as to those
working only 1 or 2 days a week. Some Employers pay such benefits
only to those drivers working 5 days a week. Another type of bonus
is generally paid on a quarterly basis to drivers working 60 to 65 days
per quarter year on the basis of 1 or 2 percent of gross revenues from
14 See footnote 13, supra.
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bookings. This work requirement excludes all drivers except those
working 5 or more days a week.
Group life insurance coverage is generally provided by the Em-
ployers for drivers working 5 days a week or more, thereby excluding
drivers working 3 or 4 days a week as well as those working 1 or 2
days a week.
The Petitioner contends that public policy of the city of New York
requires the exclusion from the bargaining unit of drivers working
only 1 or 2 days a week. For the reasons given in Terminal System,
inc., supra, we reject this contention.
Also, for the reasons set forth in Terminal System, Inc., supra, the
unit requested by the Petitioner, insofar as it seeks to exclude drivers
regularly working less than 3 days a week, appears to be based on the
extent of its organization of the Employers' drivers, a factor which,
under Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, may not control in the determination
of the appropriate unit."
In its brief, the Petitioner stated "... that it is prepared to proceed
to an election in the bargaining unit and according to the rule of
eligibility found appropriate by the Board. . . ."
As all full-time and part-time drivers working for each of the
Employers have substantially the same terms of employment and
working conditions, perform the same type of work, use similar equip-
ment, drive in the same geographical area, work under the same super-
vision, receive the same rate of commission as compensation for their
services, hold the same type of license from the city of New York, and
are all subject to the authority of its hack bureau,18 we shall include in
the units with the full-time drivers all the Employers' regular drivers
working only 1 or 2 days a week, as well as those working 3 or 4 days
a week, as we deem them to be regular part-time drivers,17 and they
shall therefore be eligible to vote in the election herein.18 Accordingly,
we find that the following employees of each of the Employers con-
stitute units appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of the Act :
15 Transcontinental Bus System , Inc., 119 NLRB 1840, 1844.
16 See Terminal System, Inc ., supra.
17 Decatur Transfer & Storage, Inc ., 105 NLRB 633 , 636-637; The McMahon Trans-
portation Company , 124 NLRB 1092 ; Brown Cigar Company , 124 NLRB 1435. The
Employers in their brief suggest the following test for inclusion of drivers in the bar-
gaining unit : " . . drivers who work at least one day a week for three weeks in the
four week period preceding the election should be included in the bargaining unit.
These may be drivers who worked a lesser number of days during this period who have
demonstrated by past regularity that they have an interest in the determination of
representation . Any driver who has worked at least one day in each of 14 weeks of
the six-month period preceding the election , should qualify ." We do not perceive any
basis for departing from our policy of including all regular part-time employees in the
bargaining unit Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc, 120 NLRB 1669 , 1670-1671 ; necatur
Transfer & Storage, Inc, supra
" Sears Roebuck & Company, 112 NLRB 559, 569, footnote 28.
JAT TRANSPORTATION CORP. ET AL. 787
All taxicab drivers, including all regular part-time drivers, but
excluding casual drivers and employees of individual cab owner-
drivers, watchmen, guards, mechanics, all clerical and maintenance
employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 2-RC-9970.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS BEAN and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
APPENDIX A
Case NO.
Jat Transportation Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9948
Real Cab Corp. et al.
Central Maintenance Corp. et al. .-------------------- 2-RC-9949
Bonded Cab Corp. et al.
Little Cab Corp. & Checker Garage Service Corp. et al. - 2-RC-9950
George's Taxi Service & Cadet Maintenance Co., Inc.
et al. ------------------------------------------- 2-RC-9953
Dee Bee Garage Corp. et al. ------------------------- 2-RC-9954
Kroy Service, Inc. et al. --------------------------- 2-RC-9955
Clinton Taxi Corp. et al. -------------------------- 2-RC-9956
Londal Operating Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9957
S.J.Z. Cab Corp. et al. ----------------------------- 2-RC-9960
Main Operating Corp. et al. ------------------------ 2-RC-9964
New Taxi Dispatch Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9965
Ann Operating Corp. et al. ------------------------- 2-RC-9966
M & S Maintenance Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9968
Rio Cab Corp. et al. ------------------------------- 2-RC-9969
New Yorker Fleet, Inc. et al. ----------------------- 2-RC-9970
Regis Maintenance Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9971
Mardon Operating Corp. et al. --------------------- 2-RC-9972
Continental Cab Corp. et al. ------------------------ 2-RC-9973
Cab Transportation Corp. et al. -------------------- 2-RC-9974
Jofan Maintenance Corp. et al. -------------------- 2-RC-9975
Cab Management Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9976
Jackson Maintenance Corp. et al. -------------------- 2-RC-9977
Level Maintenance Corp. et al. --------------------- 2-RC-9979
Chase Maintenance Corporation, et al. ---------------- 2-RC-9980
Columbia Operating Co., Inc. et al. ---------------- 2-RC-9981
Ramp Maintenance Corp. and Key Maintenance Corp.
et al. ------------------------------------------- 2-RC-9982
A.A.R. Operating Co., Inc. et al. ------------------- 2-RC-9983
Marby Operating Corp. et al. ----------------------- 2-RC-9984
Metro System Corp. et al. -------------------------- 2-RC-9985
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No
National Transportation Co., Inc. ------------------ 2-RC-9986
Progress Service Corporation, et al. ---------------- 2-RC-9987
Super Operating Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-9988
Tedmar Service Co., Inc. et al. _______________________ 2-RC-9989
Vernon Operating Co., Inc. et al. ------------------- 2-RC-9991
Andrea Service Corp. et al. ----------------------- 2-RC-9992
Willow Maintenance Corp. et al. _____________________ 2-RC-9993
Celbert Garage Corp. et al. __________________________ 2-RC-9995
Butler Maintenance Corp. et al. -------------------- 2-RC-9996
Dynamic Operating Corp. et al. -------------------- 2-RC-9997
55th Street Taxi Garage, Inc. et al. __________________ 2-RC-9998
Eden Maintenance Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-10000
Forest Maintenance Corp. et al. ______________________ 2-RC-10001
FEM Corp. et al. --------------------------------- 2-RC-10002
Trans Maintenance, Inc. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-10003
LEN Service Corp. et al. --------------------------- 2-RC-10005
Transportation Maintenance, Inc. et al. -------------- 2-RC-10007
Haso Maintenance Corp. et al. ---------------------- 2-RC-10008
Cab Operating Co., Inc. et al. _______________________ 2-RC-10013
Phoenix Taxi Corp. et al. -------------------------- 2-RC-10015
Cornell Maintenance Corp. et al. -------------------- 2-RC-10016
Frenat Service Corp. et al. ------------------------- 2-RC-10017
C & J Garage Corp. et al. ___________________________ 2-RC-10018
Gaar Service Corp. et al. ____________________________ 2-RC-10019
Yankee Service Corp. et al. _________________________ 2-RC-10021
Yale Service Corp. et al. ____________________________ 2-RC-10022
River Service Corp. et al.
Finmore Cab Corp. et al. 2-RC-10023
Tyrone Service Co., Inc. et al.
EN Operating Corp. et al. -------------------------- 2-RC-10024
Helen Maintenance Corp. et al. --------------------- 2-RC-10025
Bebe Operating Corp. et al. ------------------------ 2-RC-10027
Jayson Operating Corp. et al. _______________________ 2-RC-10028
57th Street Management Corp. et al. _________________ 2-RC-10029
Hotpoint Division , General Electric Company and Peter J.
Kornewich. Case No. 13-CA-3251. August 24,1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 11, 1960 , Trial Examiner Max M . Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
128 NLRB No 96.