Law Tanning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1748 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
27. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James
Anthony, John Edsel, and Floyd Nance, thereby discouraging membership in United
Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, Respondent violated the
settlement agreement and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
28. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John
Edsel and Floyd Nance because they gave testimony under the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (4) of the Act.
29. On January 23, 1958, by impliedly threatening to close the plant down if the
Union got in, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
William L . Law, General Partner and William L . Law and Fred
V. Gardner, Marine National Exchange Bank , Trustees, d/b/a
Law Tanning Company and Leather Workers Union, Local
No. 47, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-9849 and 13-CA-
2877. June 19, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 13, 1959, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report together with 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. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the
case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 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, Bean,
and Fanning].
123 NLRB No. 210
LAW TANNING COMPANY 1749
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges, as amended, filed by the above Union, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued an order of consolidation and a complaint dated
November 10, 1958, against the Respondent, or the Company, alleging that it had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. The Respondent in its answer admits certain allega-
tions of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on December 17 and 19, 1958. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented by counsel, the Charging Party by its business
agent, and all were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant
evidence, to present argument, and to file briefs. The General Counsel and the
Respondent filed briefs which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the Respondent, a partner-
ship, maintains its principal office and place of business at Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
where it is engaged in the tanning and processing of leather hides. During the
year 1957, the Respondent processed, sold, and shipped products valued in excess
of $500,000 from its plant directly to customers located outside the State of
Wisconsin. I find the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The questions presented are: (1) whether the Company discriminatorily dis-
charged Amelia Martinez on May 16, 1958, and (2) whether the plant manager
made threatening or coercive remarks in the course of a speech to the employees
on June 2, 1958.
B. The Company's operations
At all times material, Maurice L. Squire was general manager, in complete charge
of the plant and Oscar Schmidt was plant superintendent, responsible for manu-
facturing operations and the hiring and firing of personnel.
The Company conducts its operations in a 2-story building, the heavy machinery,
including splitting machines, being located on the first floor while other equipment
and the ladies' washroom and lunchroom are situated on the second floor. During
May or June the Company had about 75 employees, with girls outnumbering the
men, and for the past 3 or 4 years it has employed a large number of Puerto
Rican girls.
One of the operations performed by girls is that of feeding leather into the split-
ting machine and taking it off as it comes out of the splitter.l These operations
are fairly simple, require but little training and about the only skill required is that
the leather be properly fed to avoid damage to the leather and the machine. When
small pieces of leather are being processed, three girls feed the machine and one
takes off and when large pieces are used, two girls feed while one takes off. Cyril
(Cy) J. Laughrin and Henry S. Stachowiak, skilled and experienced employees,
operate and maintain the splitting machines 2 and it is also their responsibility to
see that the operators correctly perform their jobs.
C. Events preceding the discharge of Martinez
Martinez was first employed in 1953 and worked until sometime in 1954 when
she quit to go back to Puerto Rico. During 1955 she was reemployed and worked
1 Apparently, the splitting machine cuts or shaves the leather to a uniform thickness.
2 According to Laughrin, the Company has five machines, three "of my type."
1750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until May 16, 1958, when she was discharged. On the latter date, and for some
time prior thereto, Martinez was a feeder on one of the big splitting machines.
Alice Demlang worked on the same machine, seemingly on the takeoff operation.
Ordinarily Martinez processed large pieces of leather although at times, when other
machines broke down, she would work with small pieces of leather. On these
occasions additional girls worked with her on the operation.
The Meeting of the Splitting Machine Employees on May 14
It is undisputed that Schmidt assembled the girls in the splitting department, about
16 in all, and spoke to them at or shortly before quitting time.
Martinez testified he accused the girls of taking too much time in the toilet and
they should not take more than 5 minutes.
Carmen Negron, sister of Martinez and employed as feeder on the machine next
to Martinez, stated Schmidt told the group they were spending too much time in
the toilet, talking too much and they could be fired.
Carmen Valez and Ernestina Gonzales said Schmidt announced they should not
take too much time in the toilet and if they took more than 5 minutes they would
be fired. Demlang testified to the same effect and added that the meeting, the only
group meeting ever held, lasted about 5 minutes.3
Schmidt called the meeting as a result of a discussion with Squire that morning
regarding production and talks with Laughrin along the same line, Laughrin's com-
plaint being the girls were spending 15 or 20 minutes in the ladies' room. Schmidt
told the girls they were spending too much time in the washroom and talking too
much while working. He further stated that if they kept talking someone would be
injured. Martinez snickered and he pointed at her and said, "You wait and see."
The meeting then ended. Admittedly, Schmidt had no conversation with Martinez
until he discharged her.
Laughrin said Schmidt told the employees 5 minutes was the limit in the wash-
room and if they stayed longer they would be fired. Following this remark there
was laughing including Martinez who gave, what he termed, "a dirty laugh."
Schmidt made no reference to the character of the employees' work.
Stachowiak related that Schmidt spoke about bad work and he knew who was
doing it. He also stated there was too much talking and inattention to work, that
someone might be hurt, and somebody is going to get fired. When Schmidt made
the last remark he pointed to Martinez. Stachowiak did not hear Martinez or any-
one else laugh while Schmidt was talking.
Organizational Activities by Martinez on May 15
On this date Martinez decided to attempt to organize a union among the em-
ployees. Sometime prior thereto she had spoken to relatives about unions but had
not contacted any union nor did she have any special organization in mind. Martinez
further stated there was no particular incident occurring around that date which
prompted her desire for organization and she specifically denied that she was "in
bad" with Schmidt or Laughrin or that she had been "scolded" by Schmidt. In
furtherance of her desire Martinez approached about 30 girls during the luncheon
hour, in the plant lunchroom, and told them a union would be a good thing for
them in that they might get a wage increase, reduce the hours of work and stop
Schmidt from going into the ladies' toilet. Martinez advised the workers that if
they were in favor of a union to sign their names on a blank sheet of paper which
she had with her. She also contacted some of the Puerto Rican men who worked
on the second floor. As a result of her solicitations Martinez obtained the signa-
tures of 25 employees, both men and women, although all the workers she ap-
proached did not sign up. Martinez did not show her paper to Laughrin or
Stachowiak.
Negron, Velez, Guzman, Demlang, and Gonzales testified to the effect that
Martinez spoke to girls about joining or having a union and that they signed the
paper for her.
3 Demlang testified through a German interpreter while all other witnesses for the
General Counsel gave their testimony through a Spanish interpreter, except Luz or Lucy
Guzman and Rosa Hernandez.
LAW TANNING COMPANY 1751
The Dismissal of Martinez on May 16
On the morning of May 16, Martinez worked on the splitting machine running
large sizes of leather. At noon, Schmidt advised her that, "I was not going to
work at the plant any more." Martinez asked the reason for her discharge and
"He told me to ask the others what I was doing the day before." Apparently that
ended the conversation. Martinez then went to the second floor and informed the
girls she had been fired. Guzman, accompanied by Martinez, then went to Schmidt,
who was near the lunchroom, and asked why he had fired Martinez. Schmidt re-
plied, "he was firing me, and he was going to fire someone else if they was doing
the same thing I was doing the day before."
Guzman, employed in the trimming department, testified she did not believe
Martinez had been fired so she went to Schmidt and he verified the fact that she
had been discharged. Guzman then inquired why she had been dismissed and he
stated, "that we and all the other know why she was fired. The reason she was
doing yesterday, he said. That is all."
Negron was present when Guzman, together with Martinez, asked Schmidt the
reason for her discharge. Schmidt said, "You know, every women here know why
I fire, you do, everybody, and Amelia say, why you fire. And he say-I fire you,
you know what you doing yesterday." 4
Schmidt related he informed Martinez she was being fired and when she stated
she did not understand why he was firing her, he asked what she meant. Martinez
replied she did not understand English and Schmidt remarked he had known her a
long time and she understood English pretty good. Martinez denied this and sug-
gested she get her husband. Schmidt then told her, "If you don't understand, you
just ask one of the girls what I said Wednesday evening. Anyone can tell you why
you are being fired." This concluded the conversation and Schmidt went to the
second floor. There Guzman asked why Martinez had been discharged and he
stated, "You go down to the splitting machine and ask one of the girls what I said
Wednesday night. They can tell you what she is being fired for."
The Circumstances Culminating in Martinez' Discharge
Martinez testified she was in the hospital in August 1957 and upon her return to
work Laughrin was "kind of mad" at her, seemingly because she had not informed
him of her going to the hospital or her failure to "give him the paper." Sometime
later they had words concerning work in the course of which Laughrin cursed her
and she picked up a wrench to defend herself. Later she explained the incident to
Schmidt and she continued to work without any disciplinary action being invoked
against her.
Demlang said that on the above occasion Laughrin accused Martinez of doing
bad work and when he cursed her, Martinez picked up a wrench but did not hit
him. Demlang heard no further arguments between Laughrin and Martinez.
Laughrin testified that about November or December 1957, he spoke to Martinez
about her work and "she hauled off and hit me in the ear." As Laughrin was walk-
ing away from the machine she came after him with a wrench but her sister stopped
her. Laughrin then got Schmidt who talked to Martinez. He denied that he
cursed Martinez.
Casmira Seefurth said she saw Martinez in the ladies' room shortly after the
above incident and Martinez stated she had slapped Laughrin in the face.
Schmidt said three or four of the girls told him Laughrin and Martinez were
fighting so he went to the machine where he found Martinez screaming and, after
quieting her down, asked what the trouble was. Martinez stated Laughrin was
picking on her, causing trouble, and wanted to fight her. Schmidt straightened
out the matter and then told her that if anything like that happened again, or if she
stepped out of line, she would be fired. Martinez promised she would not do any-
thing similar in the future. Schmidt did not discharge Martinez because he had
never had any trouble with her, she was a good girl and a good feeder and it was
close to Christmas.
+ Negron was examined and responded in English on this point and had difficulty in ex-
pressing herself. Later she gave her testim any through an interpreter.
1752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laughrin stated that at first Martinez and her sister were the best girls he ever
had and he always got along with Martinez until she became "bullheaded," in that
she ignored his instructions. Laughrin spoke to Martinez about her poor work on
many occasions and the last year it kept getting worse. During this period he
brought the matter to the attention of Squire and Schmidt three or four times.
Stachowiak said Martinez was not feeding properly in 1957 and, while he talked to
her frequently about sloppy work, it gradually became worse. He also mentioned
this situation to Squire and Schmidt.
Squire testified he first learned that Martinez was not performing her job properly
in the early part of April 1958. At that time Laughrin reported to him that
Martinez was feeding incorrectly and was spending too much time going to the
toilet. He further reported that she had slapped him, that he was having trouble
with her and they could not get along. Squire admitted Laughrin was hard to get
along with at times. Following this conversation Squire discussed the matter with
Schmidt and they decided to watch Martinez, which they did. Thereafter, Squire
checked frequently, almost daily with Laughrin, as well as Stachowiak, and Laughrin
reported Martinez was not improving in her work and was still spending too much
time in the toilet. As a result of these reports Squire, on May 13 or 14, decided,
"I couldn't have such work, and it turned out some of the girls were staying in the
toilet too long," so he instructed Schmidt to fire Martinez. Schmidt said he could
not discharge Martinez at that time because he was far behind in production. Squire
instructed Schmidt to put another splitting machine into operation and hire three girls
for that purpose and to get a replacement for Martinez. The four new girls were
to be obtained, as was the custom, by telling the Puerto Rican girls that jobs were
available and to bring in their relatives or friends. This was the only time Squire
ever directed an employee be discharged and he could not recall the dismissal of
any employee who had worked for a year or more.
Schmidt testified substantially the same as Squire, except that he fixed the date
of their conversation as of the morning of May 14. Following his talk to the em-
ployees that day, Schmidt informed Guzman and Carmen Alvarez that he was
going to hire four girls and if they knew any good girls looking for a job to have
them come in to see him the next morning. The following morning, Thursday,
May 15, Schmidt interviewed and hired four girls and instructed them to report for
work on Monday, May 19. During the morning of May 16, Martinez was process-
ing large pieces of leather while her sister was on a machine running small pieces.
When the small pieces had been processed an operator became available, so Schmidt
discharged Martinez and used her sister as her replacement.
Squire, Schmidt, Laughrin, and Stachowiak testified they had no knowledge of
Martinez' organizational activities prior to the time of her discharge.
Alvarez, employed as a rotary staker on the second floor, related that on May 14,
Schmidt told her he needed two or three girls to work on the new splitting machine
and in the trimming department. The same day Alvarez informed Laura Figeroa
of the openings and the next day she spoke to Hernandez. It is not clear whether
Alvarez brought the girls to the plant, but in any event they were hired and went to
work the following Monday, Figeroa being assigned to the trimming department.
Hernandez had previously spoken to Alvarez about a job and on May 15, she
told Hernandez to see Schmidt the next day. On May 16, Hernandez talked to
Schmidt, was hired, and went to work Monday on the splitting machine. Accord-
ing to Hernandez, three or four other new girls commenced work on Monday, two
of them working with her on the splitting machine. Hernandez did not understand
she was hired to replace an employee.
Guzman was not examined on the subject of securing new employees.
Martinez admitted Laughrin talked to her about her work a few times but denied
she was ever reprimanded for poor work. She further stated she spent about 5 or
6 minutes in the ladies' room, the same as other employees, and she received no
complaints or warnings concerning her visits there. Martinez said she and her
partner, Demlang, did not talk very much because they spoke different languages,
Spanish and German, and neither spoke English very well.
Negron stated she, Martinez, and the other girls usually spent 5 to 7 minutes in
the ladies' room. She also stated she did not get along too well with Laughrin and
Martinez got along with him about the same as she and the rest of the girls. At
times she observed Laughrin speak to her sister but she did not know what they
were talking about.
LAW TANNING COMPANY 1753
Demlang said Laughrin criticized the work of all the girls.
Velez, Guzman, Demlang, and Gonzales testified Martinez spent the same time
in the ladies' room as they did, usually 5 or 7 minutes.
Lela Garonski, trimmer, said on several occasions she noticed Martinez spend
more than 5 minutes in the ladies' room.
Squire's Speech to the Employees on June 2
There is no substantial issue as to what Squire stated to the employees but rather
the understanding or meaning of his remarks by some of the Puerto Rican em-
ployees. It is clear that Squire opened his .talk by stating that paychecks would be
delayed for 2 or 3 days because of a death in the family of the paymaster, but any-
one urgently needing his check should see him. Squire then said he had heard some
of the employees were interested in a union and they had the right to sign, or refuse
to sign, a union card. He went on to say that the employees had steady work, were
given overtime and had a profit-sharing plan and to his knowledge no union plant
in the industry had overtime or a profit-sharing plan. Squire expressed the belief
that the employees should know that although the employees of a neighboring plant,
General Split Corporation, had voted in favor of a union about 6 months previ-
ously they had received no wage increases or overtime, and, apparently, lost their
profit-sharing plan.
Seefurth and Garonski gave substantially the same version of the speech.
While Negron and Velez understood some of Squire's remarks, they did not under-
stand all, so they talked with other employees about the speech. In brief, Negron
and Velez stated they understood Squire to say he was not against the union but
the union was not good; that if it should come in there would be no more overtime,
profit sharing, or paid vacations.
Guzman related Squire told them they could join the union if they wished, but to
remember that a union may be good in some places and in others, no good; that
sometimes you get overtime and sometimes you do not and maybe you do not have
profit sharing or bonuses.
Demlang understood Squire to say there would be no union in the plant, and if
it came in the employees would lose their overtime, Christmas bonus, and profit-
sharing plan.
I have no difficulty in finding that Squire spoke in the manner described by Re-
spondent's witnesses and that he made no threatening or coercive statements to the
employees. The General Counsel does not seriously question the propriety of
Squire's speech, but argues that irrespective of what he actually said, the coercive
character of his remarks must be tested in the light of the meaning and under-
standing given thereto by the Puerto Rican employees who had limited knowledge of
the English language. However, the fact that the General Counsel's witnesses may
have honestly misunderstood or misinterpreted Squire's statements to contain threats
of reprisals for engaging in union activities does not make the speech unlawful since
the subjective state of mind of employees is not controlling in determining the
legality of employer statements. (B.M.C. Manufacturing Corporation, 113 NLRB
823, 825, footnote 8.) Moreover, no adverse inference may be drawn from the fact
that the speech was delivered in English, without translation, for all work instruc-
tions at the plant were given in English.
Concluding Findings
The remaining issue to be decided is whether Martinez was discriminatorily dis-
charged. The evidence discloses that Martinez' organizational activities consisted of
her talking to the employees about organization and soliciting signatures from those
in favor of a union. She engaged in these activities at the plant during the luncheon
period on May 15, and the next day she was dismissed. Company officials assert
they had no knowledge of Martinez' activities and had decided to discharge her prior
to the occurrence thereof. Of course, knowledge by the employer of a dischargee's
union membership or activity is a prerequisite to a finding of discriminatory dis-
charge. (Howard Aero, Inc., 119 NLRB 1531, 1533.) The General Counsel con-
tends that Company knowledge may be inferred from Martinez' open solicitation,
her quick discharge, and the reason therefor.5
6I reject, as purely speculative and proving nothing, the argument that one of the
girls who refused to sign the paper was seen talking to Laughrin immediately thereafter.
1754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I fail to see how knowledge may be imputed on the basis of Martinez' single
effort at organization, which took place on her own time and, obviously, was of
short duration. While it is true company representatives watched Martinez insofar
as her work was concerned, there is no suggestion whatever that she was kept under
general surveillance. Nor do I believe the circumstances of her discharge warrant
such an inference. In essence, Martinez, Guzman, and Velez testified Schmidt in-
formed them Martinez was dismissed for what she had done the day before. On
the other hand Schmidt testified he told Martinez if she did not understand the
reason for her discharge to ask the girls what he had stated on Wednesday, May 14,
and he repeated substantially the same statement when questioned by Guzman as
to the cause of Martinez' discharge. In my opinion, the testimony adduced by the
parties on this point is not too clear or convincing. However, I am inclined to accept
the version given by the General Counsel's witnesses, despite .the fact they might
well have misinterpreted the remarks, not by reason of the impressiveness of this
evidence, but because Schmidt's testimony is vague and meaningless when considered
in the light of his meeting with the employees on May 14, for he said nothing at
that meeting suggesting that Martinez had been discharged or was scheduled to be
discharged. Even so, it does not necessarily follow that Schmidt's statement estab-
lishes a discriminatory discharge. To reach that conclusion requires the placing of
inference upon inference, namely, that Schmidt was aware of Martinez' activities
and fired her for that reason. I must reject this evidence and rationale as inadequate
to support a finding of discrimination. (Indiana Metal Products Corporation v.
N.L.R.B., 202 F. 2d 613, 616-617 (C.A. 7).) Nor does the record considered in
its entirety warrant a different conclusion. As already stated Martinez engaged in
organizational activities on a single occasion and was dismissed the next day. There
is no evidence of antiunion animus, no other alleged unfair labor practices, or even
questionable conduct on the part of the Company, either before or after Martinez'
discharge. The Board and the courts have held that knowledge of union member-
ship or activity and discrimination may reasonably be inferred where the evidence
discloses a pattern of hostility to organization, but the facts in such cases were far
stronger than the meager facts herein. (N.L.R.B. v. Link-Belt Company, 311
U.S. 584, 602; Angwell Curtain Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 192 F. 2d 899, 902-903
(C.A. 7) ; Wiese Plow Welding Co., inc., 123 NLRB 616; Oregon Teamsters' Security
Plan Office, 119 NLRB 207, 209, footnote 7; The R. C. Mahon Company, 118
NLRB 1537, 1541; United Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc., 118 NLRB 883, 889; Lincoln
Brassiere Co., Inc., 117 NLRB 1237, 1240. Contra (as to inference of knowledge) :
N.L.R.B. v. P. R. Mallory & Co., 237 F. 2d 437, 443-445 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v.
Wagner Iron Works, etc., 220 F. 2d 126, 137 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Whiten Machine
Works, 204 F. 2d 883, 884-885 (C.A. 1); Hancock Trucking Company, Incorpo-
rated, 109 NLRB 80; Martel Mills Corporation, 118 NLRB 618, 620-621.)
Considering the foregoing facts and authorities I find the evidence does not war-
rant the inference that the Company had knowledge of Martinez' activities prior to
her discharge. Fully supporting this conclusion is the fact that Alvarez gave sub-
stantial support to Schmidt's testimony that on May 14, he requested Alvarez and
Guzman to obtain four new girls for him. Guzman while appearing as a witness
for the General Counsel was not questioned on this point and did not testify in re-
buttal. Accordingly, Schmidt's testimony is both corroborated and uncontradicted
and must be accepted and credited. While the circumstances herein might raise a
suspicion that the discharge was discriminatory, mere suspicion or surmise cannot
be considered as evidence to support a finding of unfair labor practice. (N.L.R.B. v.
Shen-Valley Meat Packers, Inc., 211 F. 2d 289, 292-293 (C.A. 4).)
I, therefore, find and conclude that the Company did not discriminatorily dis-
charge Martinez as alleged in the complaint.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent occur in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]