Kickert Brothers Ford, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1316 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. By the conduct detailed as violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in section III,
above , and by the aforesaid unfair labor practice found in subsection 5, above, the
Respondent has been and now is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Kickert Brothers Ford , Inc. and Automobile Mechanics Lodge
No. 701 , International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO,
Charging Party. Case No. 13-CA--3567. January 13, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 27, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon 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 the Respondent cease and de-
sist 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 sup-
porting brief. The General Counsel submitted a brief in support of
the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below.'
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 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that by rescinding its proposed cut in the
mechanics ' share of the labor costs charged to customers after the Union had signed up a
majority of the Respondent 's employees , the Respondent committed an independent viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. The proposed wage cut was never put in effect and
hence did not become one of the terms or conditions of employment concerning which the
Respondent was under obligation to bargain . However, as the Respondent , but for the
designation of the Union as the bargaining representative of its employees , would have put
the proposed reduction in the mechanics ' share in effect , we find that by refraining under
the circumstances from doing so the Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , in violation
of Section 8(a)(1).
129 NLRB No. 160.
KICKERT BROTHERS FORD, INC. 1317
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Kickert Brothers
Ford, Inc., Dolton, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Threatening its employees to discontinue its business if the
Union becomes their collective-bargaining agent.
(b) Making economic concessions to its employees in an effort to
turn them against the Union.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive represen-
tative of its employees in an appropriate unit.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist in any other 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 re-
f rain from any and all 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, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and
embody in a signed contract any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its place of business in Dolton, Illinois, copies of the
notice marked "Appendix" I attached to the Intermediate Report.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is
entforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 ( b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended ( 61 Stat . 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Chicago , Illinois, on
June 1, 1960, pursuant to due notice and with all parties represented . The complaint,
issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called
the General Counsel and the Board ) on March 31, 1960 , and based on charges duly
filed and served , alleged that Kickert Brothers Ford, Inc., herein called Respondent,
had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the
Act by specified acts of interference , restraint , and coercion of its employees in the
exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the Act and by refusing to bargain with
Automobile Mechanics Lodge No. 701, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, the Charging Party herein, as the exclusive representative of an appro-
priate unit of its employees.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
At all times material herein Respondent has been a corporation incorporated under
the laws of Illinois and has maintained its office and facilities at Dolton, Illinois,
where it has engaged in the sale and servicing of automobiles. In the course and
conduct of its business during the calendar year 1959 Respondent purchased and re-
ceived at its Dolton, Illinois, place of business directly from outside the State of
Illinois automobiles and other materials valued in excess of $50,000. During the
same period Respondent sold to the general public automobiles and other materials
which had a gross retail value in excess of $500,000. Respondent admits and I find
that at all times material herein Respondent has been engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Automobile Mechanics Lodge No. 701, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About 9 months after Respondent took over the Ford Automobile Agency at Dol-
ton, Illinois, Peter Kickert, Respondent's president, called its mechanics together to
discuss with them the necessity for financial retrenchment. Telling them that business
had not been as good as had been expected, he asked them to accept a temporary cut
in their share of the labor charges to customers from a 50-50 basis to the short end of
a 45-55 basis. They assented to the arrangement. A few days later, the affected
employees sought out the Union and six out of a possible seven in an appropriate
unit I signed union authorization cards on January 18, 1960.
On January 19, the Union wrote Respondent in part as follows:
This is to advise you that a majority of the men employed in your shop wish
to be represented by Automobile Mechanics Local No. 701, I.A. of M.
Would appreciate it if you will kindly advise the earliest possible date a meet-
ing can be arranged for the purpose of discussing an agreement covering these
employees under the Ford Dealers' Association Agreement which is now in effect
with the other Ford Dealers in Chicago and vicinity.
1It was stipulated "that the unit as described (in the complaint) is appropriate, except
for the fact that it should also have included people who wash cars." The unit set forth
in the complaint is:
All auto mechanics, bodymen, auto painters, and their helpers and apprentices in
Respondent's employ, excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees,
salesmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
KICKERT BROTHERS FORD, INC. 1319
We are enclosing a copy of the Agreement as negotiated with the Ford
Dealers' Association, of which you are a member.2
On January 22 the Union filed an R petition with the Board in which the unit was
described as,
All auto mechanics, body men, auto painters and their helpers and apprentices
(excluding) office clerical employees, professional employees, salesmen , guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees.
About 3 days after they had signed the union cards three of the employees met
with Ronald Kickert, Respondent's secretary-treasurer, in the latter's office. Accord-
ing to the General Counsel's version Kickert wanted to know what their troubles were
for the purpose of seeing if he could straighten them out. He also questioned why
they had signed union cards and had not come to him first. He told them he did not
think they needed a union and voiced the conviction that they could settle their
mutual problems between themselves. The main grievance was the general cut in the
division of the customer labor charges, but some individual complaints were aired by
Gene Swart, one of the mechanics. He wanted his guarantee raised from $82.50 per
week to $90, as was being guaranteed to a recently hired mechanic, and to go to
the Fordomatic school as he had been promised. Kickert said he was not aware of
the differential in Swart's guarantee and that the school had not yet started but
that "he'd make sure and look into it." As the complaints were forthcoming, Kickert
made written notations regarding them and said he would see what he could do to
remedy them .3
The discussion lasted about an hour at the end of which Kickert suggested they go
back to the shop and conduct a vote on whether or not they "still wanted the Union." 4
This they did and went back to Kickert with the unanimous result in favor of the
Union showing him the ballots.5
That night according to Swart's undenied and credited testimony Kickert talked to
Swart and Deinema. He told them "he was losing a lot of money now, and with the
Union coming in he'd lose more money. So he would have to sell out, go out of busi-
ness." A few nights later according to Chevalier's credited testimony Kickert came
back in the shop and talked to him and Deinema. "He wanted (them) to do some-
thing . where (they would) get together and vote for the Union to not represent
(them) in some way or other." Several times within the few days following the
union vote both Ronald Kickert and his brother, Harold (a stockholder in the busi-
ness ), told the employees that "the way business was they couldn't meet the union
demands . . . and if they came in, they'd have to close."
The next thing that occurred was that Respondent' s name signs were taken off a
pickup truck of Respondent as well as off two demonstrators which had been carry-
ing them for advertising purposes. About the same time , special tools which appar-
2 The agreement lists the employees covered as being "mechanics, apprentices and semi-
skilled workers " Semiskilled workers are described in article II, section 2, of the agree-
ment as follows :
The terns "Semi-Skilled Worker" shall apply to any person who shall assist any
mechanic in the repair of automobiles or the parts thereof or who shall grease auto-
mobiles or parts thereof or who shall be engaged in new car make-ready, minor
inspection, adjustment and/or repair or minor used car reconditioning It is under-
stood that semi-skilled workers shall not be permitted to use mechanics' tools on
work requiring a skilled mechanic or perform any such work unless under the super-
vision of a mechanic.
s This is based on the cross-examination of Elwood Chevalier, a witness called by the
General Counsel On direct, however, he testified that Kickert said he would remedy the
grievances. In his testimony, about the only point Kickert was definite on in this con-
nection was that he made no definite commitments at the time.
4 This is based on Swart's testimony While Chevalier testified on cross-examination
that the vote suggestion was made by one of the three employees, in view of the equivoca-
tion in Kickert's testimony about it I credit Swart
5 The General Counsel's witnesses testified that the ballots were to be marked "yes" for
the Union and "no" against the Union. Kickert testified that not only were there eight
ballots marked only with an "X" but that Deinema, who showed bim the ballots, told him
he, had not voted and that another employee later told him he had voted against the
Union This all made no sense to Kickert who wondered if the employees knew what they
were voting for. Nevertheless Deinema told him at the time that the employees had
voted for the Union. I credit the General Counsel' s version here.
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ently had been part of the general equipment housed in the back of the shop were
removed therefrom and taken to the parts room . Also, Ronald Kickert issued orders
to Body Shop Supervisor Bowdish not to order any more material.
At this point the employees began "wondering if (they ) were going to have a job
left, so (they ) thought maybe if (they ) tried to get the Union back out and write
a petition to them, that ( they'd ) get out of the Union and he'd still be in business
and (they'd ) keep ( their ) jobs." Accordingly in a letter dated January 23 the six
employees who signed cards wrote to the Union as follows:
We the undersigned through careful thought and consideration would like
to void the applications we signed as a group.
We as,a group and as individuals do not consider having you as a bargaining
agent. Also, as a group and as individuals would like to waiver [ sic] the pre-
vious applications we had signed.
On January 28, having received no work whatsoever from the Company and
having received the employees ' letter of rescission , the Union filed with the Board
a refusal to bargain charge and subsequently was permitted to withdraw the R
petition.
The evidence also shows that substantially all the Ford dealers in the Chicago area
that had a contract with the Charging Party (some 45 of them at the time of the
hearing ) were operating under the same contract as was appended to the Union's
letter of January 19 requesting recognition and bargaining . It further appears that
the Union "normally" does not represent car washers nor requests to represent them
in its Ford dealer contracts-such employees "normally" being under the Teamster's
jurisdiction.
At no time after the discussion in -the office between the employees and Ronald
Kickert, at which the latter promised to see what he could do about their grievances,
did the 45-55 division of service charges go into effect ; Swart never received less
than $90 per week and was sent to Fordomatic school.
For its evidence Respondent relies almost entirely on the testimony of Ronald
Kickert . He testified about the bad financial condition of the business and about
the apprehensiveness of the family concerning it 6 which gave rise to a feeling on the
part of some of the family that if things did not improve they ought to liquidate it.
When Kickert got the Union 's request for recognition he looked over the sample con-
tract and found therein several things that would increase his costs and that might
impair revenues . He never saw any of the union cards "as far as form is con-
cerned." Neither he nor anyone else connected with Respondent ever authorized
the Ford Dealers Association to bargain for Respondent.
The 45-55 basis of payment to the mechanics was decided upon on a Friday or
Saturday . Since the end of the pay period was Thursday the new basis could not
be put into effect until the following week. By then the employees had disavowed
the Union and unfair labor practices had been filed . As for any remarks he made
to Chevalier and Deinema he could not "recall saying anything specifically in
regard" to his expectations and intentions for the future "one of pessimism"; that
Respondent could not take on "any extraordinary type expense."
In explanation why the name signs were -taken off the pickup truck, he testified as
follows: He wanted to move a filing cabinet to his father's house. So he told his
brother, "Take this to my father 's house. . While you're doing that, we don't
want anything to leak out concerning the labor situation . It might affect business.
Take the signs over [off?] and don't parade this big filing cabinet through Harvey
where my father resides." That was the reason for taking down the signs and the
only reason . As to whether (or why) any signs were also taken off two demonstrators
that week he testified:
This I could not say for certainty. I do know this : That we did have them for
show ,purposes with a Kickert Bros. Display that we could place around town
or in front of our buildings . Now, frankly , I can 't recall this thing, although,
seemingly-. This is recollection . One of the cars was sold, this thing was on,
and when we decided to put on stock; and as a result of this, John, our service
manager-. This was not an order . I looked at the loaners and-which was
three and fifty-four automobiles, which were used for body repair work and
we extend as a courtesy to-. I was surprised and almost-. I said, "What did
you put those on there for?" He said, "They were lying -around . We might
as well use them," and l agreed with them and that's the reason they went on
the loaners.
O Respondent is a family owned enterprise.
KICKERT BROTHERS FORD, INC. 1321
The taking of the tools to the parts department was just an act of common pru-
dence. They had had some stealing of tools and to protect themselves they took the
aforesaid action.
Contentions and Conclusions
Respondent contends it had no duty to bargain with the Union because:
1. The employees revoked their union applications voluntarily, without coercion
or intimidation.
2. An employer can in good faith withhold recognition until representation
claims are established by a Board election.
3. The description of the unit was ambiguous.
4. The Union did not seek collective bargaining but had given Respondent an
ultimatum to 'accept the Ford Dealers Association contract.
Respondent also contends (1) that .the recision of the 45-55 basis of payment was
made for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and thus to avoid committing
an unfair labor practice, and (2) that Respondent did not threaten to discontinue
business.
I find no merit in any of the defenses raised by Respondent even if I were to make
factual findings most favorable to Respondent's version.
Even if Ronald Kickert did not tell the employees in so many words that he was
going to rescind the newly announced 45-55 basis of payment, I am convinced and
find that the whole tenor of his meeting with the employees when the matter was
discussed the second time not only lent that impression but was meant by Kickert to
lend that impression. Certainly his statement that they could work out their prob-
lems between themselves together with his other statements and actions in the meeting
were far from implying the contrary. Furthermore, the vote taken by the employees
at the end of that meeting to see if they "still wanted the Union" must have had as its
motivation at least the inference of favorable action by Respondent on the grievances
that had caused them to turn to the Union for aid.
Besides this form of subtle coercion, I find also that Respondent engaged in the
less subtle, more direct coercion of threatening to discontinue the business if the
employees continued to insist on the Union as their bargaining agent. Here again,
even if Respondent couched its language in terms of costs and economics the ulti-
mate impression that was meant to be lent was that if the Union came in the business
would go out. In this connection, I find that at least the matter of the signs, if not
those of the tools and the curtailment of orders, were utilized as aids by Respondent
in stimulating the employees' incipient fears that because of their interest in the
Union the Respondent was going to go out of business.? In the light of the foregoing,
it is clear that the revocation by the employees of their union authorizations were
neither voluntary nor without coercion or intimidation but were in fact induced by
Respondent's illegal conduct. Any good faith claimed by Respondent in these cir-
cumstances for having withheld recognition of the Union until its representation
claims could be established by Board processes is, of course, not valid-particularly
in the context here where the matter is never mentioned until the Respondent is
called upon to defend against an unfair labor practice charge.
Equally without merit is Respondent's contention that by enclosing and referring to
the contract then in force between the Union and other members of the Ford
Dealers Association (of which Respondent was a member) the Union was not seeking
bargaining but was laying down an ultimatum to accept said contract. Charles E.
Reed & Co, 76 NLRB 548, relied on by Respondent in this connection is not in point.
As for the contention that Respondent had no obligation to recognize the Union
because of ambiguity in the description of the unit, I find that such ambiguity as
existed here, in the circumstances herein was not of sufficient significance to excuse
Respondent's failure to recognize the Union. It is clear that the Union represented
a majority in either a unit which included car washers or excluded them. See Cary
Lumber Company, 102 NLRB 406, 408; American Rubber Products Corp., 106
NLRB 73.
On the basis of the foregoing evidence and for the above reasons I find that by
failing to recognize and bargain with the Union, Respondent violated and is violating
Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. I further find that by rescinding its announced 45-55
payment basis to the employees after having been notified of the Union's repre-
sentative status, Respondent further 'and independently violated that section of the
Act. Thayer, Inc. of Virginia, 125 NLRB 222; White Uvalde Mines, 117 NLRB
1128, 1129.
7 Respondents explanation on the matter of the signs is not intelligible to me.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operation of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit and that the Respondent refused to bargain collectively , I shall
recommend that the Respondent , upon request, bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Automobile Mechanics Lodge No. 701 , International Association of Machin-
ists , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
2. All auto mechanics , bodymen, auto painters, auto washers , and their helpers
and apprentices in Respondent 's employ, excluding office and clerical employees,
professional employees , salesmen , guards, 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
3. On January 18, 1960 , and at all times thereafter , the Union was and now is
the representative of a majority of Respondent 's employees in the above unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain with the above Union in the above appropriate unit,
Respondent engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing 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 , Respondent has engaged 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 com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
APPENDIX
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 Rela-
tions Act , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain , upon request, with Automobile Mechanics Lodge No. 701,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit described below in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed agreement . The bargain-
ing unit is:
All auto mechanics, bodymen , auto painters , auto washers , and their
helpers and apprentices in Respondent 's employ, excluding office and
clerical employees , professional employees , salesmen , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees to discontinue our business if Auto-
mobile Mechanics Lodge No. 701, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , becomes their collective -bargaining
agent.
WE WILL NOT make any economic concessions to our employees in an effort
to turn them against the above-named Union or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
VANDERBILT PRODUCTS, IN C. 1323
organizations , to join or assist Automobile Mechanics Lodge No. 701, Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual
aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
KICKERT BROTHERS FORD, INC.,
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.
Vanderbilt Products , Inc. and Plastic , Moulders & Novelty
Workers' Union , Local 132, International Ladies Garment
Workers Union , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 2-CA-7291. January 13,
1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 22, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his In-
termediate 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
take certain affirmative action, but that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in and was not engaging in certain other unfair labor practices,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
The Board has reveiwed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Vanderbilt
Products, Inc., New York, New York, its officers, agents , successors,
and assigns, shall :
1 Herein referred to as the Union.
129 NLRB No. 164.