Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1169 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LOCAL 542, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1169
WE WILL NOT promise employees more suitable working conditions or other
economic benefits if they would not favor a labor organization , and we will not
threaten to withdraw the profit-sharing plan or threaten any other economic
reprisals if the employees select a labor organization as their bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to join or assist
Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel and Restaurant Employees , Bartenders In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Ann Maniscalco immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority
and other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of earnings
she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
ELIAS BROTHERS BIG Boy, 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
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 233 West
Grand River, Detroit 26, Michigan, Telephone Number, Woodward 2-3830, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO and Giles & Ransore, Inc. Case No. 4-CB-804. Novem-
ber 01, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 22, 1962, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Inter-
mediate 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, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and 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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
139 NLRB No. 89.
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dations of the Trial Examiner with the additions, exceptions, and
modifications as hereinafter set forth.'
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, Local 542, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Blocking or interfering with the ingress and egress of em-
ployees at the premises of Giles & Ransome, Inc.; damaging automo-
biles, trucks, and other property of employees and others entering or
leaving those premises; and threatening employees with physical
violence, or with blacklisting or other economic reprisals, because
they cross or wish to cross the picket line.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of the Respondent, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondent,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to its members 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.
(b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for
the Fourth Region for posting by Giles & Ransome, Inc., said Com-
pany willing, at all locations where notices to the Company's em-
ployees are customarily posted.
i Considering the present record , and the fact that the scope of the Order would not
be affected thereby, we do not pass upon the Trial Examiner's disposition with respect to
incidents B and G or incident F, to the extent that he finds therein a violation on the
basis of the piece of tile with nails found in the area where Adley's car was parked
We also do not adopt the Trial Examiner's characterization as "mass picketing" of cer-
tain conduct which we have found violated the Act. The complaint does not allege that
Respondent engaged in "mass picketing" in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) ; nor does
the evidence in the record warrant such a finding.
Although the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent, by its agents Adley and
Acchioni, threatened employees Botnick and Stratton with economic reprisals for their
refusal to honor the Respondent 's picket line and, by such conduct, violated Section
8(b) (1) (A) of the Act , the Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to make any provision
for remedying such unfair labor practices . We shall remedy the omission by providing
that the Respondent shall cease and desist from engaging in such conduct.
2In the event that this Order is enforced 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."
LOCAL 542, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1171
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS, OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF GILES & RANSOME, INC.
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, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT block or interfere with the ingress and egress of
employees at the premises of Giles & Ransome, Inc. ; damage auto-
mobiles, trucks, and other property of employees and others enter-
ing or leaving those premises; or threaten employees with physical
violence, or with blacklisting or other economic reprisals, because
they cross or wish to cross our picket line.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
LOCAL 542, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Ofce,1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone Number, Pennypacker 5-2612,
if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The unfair labor practice charges, on which the complaint herein is based, were
filed on March 27, 1962, and the complaint was issued April 26, 1962.1
This case was heard by Trial Examiner Phil Saunders in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, on June 6 and 7. The General Counsel, Giles & Ransome, Inc., herein called
the Company or Charging Party, and Local 542, International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent Union , were represented by
counsel and all parties participated fully in the hearing. All parties hereto sub-
mitted briefs and have been considered by me in arriving at my findings and
recommendations.
It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent Union restrained and coerced
employees by threatening bodily injury because certain employees refused to observe
1 All dates are 1962 unless specifically stated otherwise.
6 72 010-63-voi. 139-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the picket line, and inflicted damage upon motor vehicles crossing or failing to
observe the picket line established by the Respondent Union. All of such conduct
being alleged to be in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act The Respondent Union by answer denied the allegations of unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Since the allegations of the complaint in this case of the facts upon which the juris-
diction of the Board is predicated are admitted in the answer, 1 find the Company
is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the retail sale and service of earthmoving
machinery. During the past year, the Company, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, sold and distributed products with the gross value exceeding
$500,000. During the past year, which is a representative period, the Company
shipped and transported products from its place of business in interstate commerce
directly to States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In this period the Company further purchased goods and services from outside the
State of Pennsylvania valued in excess of $50,000, and also performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State of Pennsylvania. I find, therefore, that
the Company is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce as those
terms are defined in Section 2(6) and (7), respectively, of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Company.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On March 5 the Respondent Union filed a petition for certification with the Board
in Case No. 4-RC-4922 (not published in NLRB volumes), formal hearing on the
petition was conducted on March 27 and April 3 2
On March 13, a group of the employees of the Company attended a union meeting
at which time the Respondent's representatives spoke to the employees regarding the
advantages of striking. A strike vote was taken by the employees and the result
was in favor of a strike On the following day, March 14, the strike commenced,
and continuing daily for approximately 10 weeks, the employees as well as other
union members picketed the entrance to the Employer's plant on a 24-hour round-
the-clock basis 3 Police officers were also on 24-hour strike duty for the purpose
of observing the picket line and to insure that its conduct was in an orderly manner.
The pickets carried signs designating the Company and the Union by name Armon
Acchioni is a business agent for the Respondent Union, and William Adley is an
officer of the Union and acted as the organizer during the period involved herein.
Adley also supervised the picket line daily.
A. Incident of March 16; findings and conclusions
Henry Olczak, an employee of the Company and a credible witness, testified that
on March 16 he drove his car through the main entrance to the company plant, and
then came to a stop at the picket line Olczak stated that he was going about 5 miles
per hour when he made his turn into the plant entrance, and that he knew the pickets
were on the driveway so he intentionally slowed down before making his turn off
the main road. Olczak testified that when he stopped at the picket line, the Re-
spondent's agent, Adley, then told Olczak that if he was ever caught taking parts
out of the Company he would never reach the age of 21 (Olczak is 19 years old )
According to the testimony given by Adley, employee Olczak came down the
2 At the time of this proceeding no date has been set for an election on the Union's
petition for certification
'The meeting at which strike action was determined upon was held at the offices of
Respondent Union, by the business manager of Local 542, Robert Walsh, and by Abraham
E. Freedman, counsel for Respondent. Obviously, the strike was induced and encouraged
by Respondent's representatives to further Respondent's organizational campaign then
in progress.
LOCAL 542, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1173
main road above normal speed, and then made a fast turn into the company drive-
way. Adley stated that when Olczak stopped at the picket line, he then inquired
as to how old he was, and then informed Olczak that if he kept driving like that
he would never see 21. Adley further stated that he then turned to a police officer
on duty and requested that he instruct Olczak to slow down and that the officer did
so.4 Olczak denied that any police officer informed him to slow down.
On the basis of the credited testimony of Olczak, as aforestated, Adley's statement
on this occasion was a threat to Olczak, who, in crossing the picket line and con-
tinuing to work, rather than join the strikers, was exercising the right guaranteed
him by Section 7 of the Act to refrain from engaging in or assisting in union activi-
ties. This right extended to any work of any type which Olczak might have been
assigned or might have chosen to do during the strike and picketing. This threat
was also made on the picket line, in the presence of a number of picketing employees
of the Company. The Board has frequently held that threats of violence are
sufficient to constitute a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A),5 and that a union's lack
of success in coercing nonstriking employees not to work does not render otherwise
unlawful conduct lawful. : find that Adley's threat to Olczak on the occasion in
question was violative of the Act.
B. Incident of March 17; findings and conclusions
The credited testimony of Police Sergeant Ashton shows that on March 17,
William Sirianni, who had been recruited for and assigned to the picket line by
Adley, deliberately and recklessly blocked the ingress to the company plant of a
neutral's car by forcing an impact with his car, and the car driven by Sirianni. Officer
Ashton issued a traffic violation complaint against Sirianni for this offense, and stated
that there were approximately 30 men on the picket line when the incident took place.
Sirianni did not testify, and the statements of Officer Ashton relative to this matter
stand undenied. I find this incident to be violative of the Act.6
C Picket line incidents as to Botnick; findings and conclusions
Sales Demonstrator Botnick, a nonstriking employee of the Company, credibly
testified that on March 22 he was asked not to drive through the picket line, and
was told by Adley, "You'll pay for this." Botnick further testified that he was also
told by Adley that he would be blacklisted by the Union and would be prevented
from working on any union jobs. A week or so later Botnick again entered the
plant through the picket line, and Adley then told Botnick, "Before this is all over
your car is going to have to be painted black," and further stated that the car and
Bomick would be in "black crepe paper." The police on duty then opened the
picket line and Botnick went into the plant, but testified that in doing so someone
then kicked his car.
Adley denied the statements attributed to him by Botnick, but admitted that he did
inquire of Botnick as to why he had not joined his fellow employees in the picket
line. Adley further admitted that on the occasions in question he also told Botnick
that he sounded like he was in mourning, and then had asked Botnick, "Why don't
you paint this thing black and hang a crepe on it?" In accordance with the
credited testimony of Botnick, I find a violation of the Act as to the threats made by
Respondent's agent, Adley, on the occasions in question here.
D. Incident of March 22; findings and conclusions
Joseph Parker, a credible witness, testified that he was stopped at the picket line on
March 22 and was asked by James McGreggor and Adley as to why he was returning
to work.7 After Parker then agreed to stay on strike 1 more day, he turned his car
around and then noticed a flat rear tire, and upon returning to his home found that the
tire had about an inch slash on the side of it. Parker further testified that his car
4 Adley admitted that he would recognize all the police officers that were on duty during
the strike , but he could not identify the officer he claimed warned Olczak about his fast
driving
8 See Virginia -Carolina Freight Lines, Inc, 123 NLRB 551.
6 Neutrals, as well as strikers , may also be coerced where such conduct may reasonably
become known to employees , and is coercive to them in their exercise of Section 7 rights
In addition , the Board has held that conduct causing damage to vehicles of neutrals cross-
ing the picket line to be violative of the Act
7 Parker had originally gone out on strike, and on this occasion was attempting to go
back to work
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was also rocked by one of the men on the picket line. It has been well established
by the Board that mass picketing on company premises which interferes with ingress
or egress , and damaging automobiles and other property of employees entering or
leaving those premises , is a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). In accordance with
the above and the credited testimony of Parker , I find a violation of the Respondent
Union in this incident involved here.
E. Incident of March 27; findings and conclusions
This incident occurred away from the picket line at a jobsite to which Botnick
and Salesman Theodore Stratton delivered a bulldozer .8 Acchioni and Adley admit
conversations with Botnick and Stratton on this occasion, but Acchioni testified that
his remarks were qualified in relating incidents of disorderly conduct on other picket
lines, and had stated that the Respondent Union did not operate in this manner. Job
Superintendent Charles Hendrickson testified that the Respondent's agents made no
threats, but admitted that he had not heard all of the various conversations which
went on, and that he was busy in and out of his office trying to get the dispute settled.
From the credited testimony, this record reveals that on the occasion in question
Business Agent Aechiont told Botnick that anyone who goes through a picket line
deserves to get his head "split open." Adley then threatened Botnick and Stratton with
economic coercion through the Union by keeping them and the company equipment
off all union jobs, so that Botnick's and Stratton's livelihood would be affected. Then
referring to the picket line, Adley said-"They think they've seen violence-they don't
know what violence is." Adley then returned to economic coercion, and stated he
would call several named customers of the Company such as U.S. Steel, Langenfelder,
and S. J. Groves and henceforth company equipment would be barred from their jobs,
that no matter where the company equipment went the Union could picket, and
further stated to Botnick and Stratton that their names would be put in the union
paper as being "scabs" that crossed the picket line.
Since this conduct was but another link in a pattern of unlawful conduct in which
the Respondent Union was engaged, I find a violation as to the threats made by the
Respondent's agents.9
F. Picket line incident of March 27; findings and conclusions
Police Officer William Edwards credibly testified that on this occasion he was
letting a truck out of the company plant, when he noticed the Respondent's agent,
Adley, placing an object underneath the left front tire.10 Edwards stated that he
then had the truck backed up, that the tile was stuck in the tire, and that Adley
pulled it out of the tire after Edwards had attempted to do so. Adley then told
Officer Edwards, "You got me now. You got me this time." Edwards further testi-
fied that later in the afternoon he also found a piece of tile with nails in it in an
area where Adley's car had been parked . li This type of conduct by the Respondent's
agent is clearly violative of the Act, and I so find.
G. Incident of March 29; findings and conclusions
The last incident in the chronology also involved damage to a truck leaving the
plant through the picket line. The credited testimony of Police Officer Edwards
shows that one of the pickets, Robert Alexander, placed his hand underneath the turn
signal bracket and pulled out the wire operating this device. Edwards issued a com-
plaint against Alexander, and as Alexander did not testified, Officer Edwards' state-
ments as to this incident stand undenied. Under these circumstances, I also find the
Respondent's conduct violated Section 8(b) (1) (A).
8 The Respondent's agents Acchiom, Adley, and other men from the picket line at the
company plant appeared at this jobsite shortly after the bulldozer arrived.
9 The Act guarantees to employees the right to engage in, or refrain from engaging in,
union activities Just as employees are free to strike and picket for lawful objectives,
employees who do not wish to do so are free to refrain from any participation in or
assistance to a strike, and are guaranteed freedom not to cooperate with the Union or
the strikers.
The object was identified as a piece of tile with five or six nails in it.
u Adley testified that the object in question was a tin can lid with nails in it, that he
did not know how it got on the driveway , but that he was responsible for the picket line
so he "grabbed for it" when the truck stopped.
LOCAL 542, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1175
H. Final conclusions
Under Sections 7 and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, it is an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to refrain from engaging in a strike or other concerted activities. In this
case the record clearly shows that the Union's officers and agents threatened at least
three employees of the Company with physical injury if they crossed the Respond-
ent's picket line. In another incident, a picket damaged the car of a neutral party
by causing collision with it while on the Company's premises, and in another case
pickets cut the tire of an employee who was attempting to return to his job. In at
least two cases the Union's agents damaged trucks that were leaving the company
premises, and in these instances police had to intervene. It needs no citation of
authority to demonstrate that Respondent's conduct constituted unlawful restraint
and coercion.
The record is also clear that the Respondent Union is legally responsible for the
misconduct since the violations were committed by or in the presence of the Respond-
ent's agents. William Adley, admittedly the Union's treasurer and official representa-
tive, set up the picket line, was in control and responsible for its management, and was
at the picket line every day.12 Adley solicited nonemployee members of the Union
to serve on the picket line, and William Sirianni, who ran his car into a neutral
party crossing the picket line, as aforestated, was recruited and assigned to the
picket line in this way.13 Furthermore, not only did this conduct occur during the
course of the strike supported and called by the Respondent against the Company,
but all except one of the specific acts were committed by or in the presence of
officials or agents of the Union. The acts of Respondent's officials were, of course,
the acts of Respondent. The single occurrence, at which Respondent's officials were
not identified, conformed to the pattern of conduct established by the acts of
these officials. As the conduct on this single occurrence comported with the pattern
established by the union officers acting literally in concert with the individuals who
committed the acts, the Union must be held responsible for such conduct.
The first witnesses called by the Respondent were Police Officers Campbell, Walker,
and Johnson. In substance, they testified that while they were on duty, there was
no misconduct observable by them on the picket line. However, nowhere in the
record does it indicate that these police officers were present at the times and on
the dates when the unlawful incidents took place.14 The Respondent also adduced
some testimony to the effect that there were two altercations between an employee and
a striker during the strike, and an employee of a neutral and a striker, respectively.
It is clearly evident, however, that the Respondent cannot justify its violent conduct
by showing that a third party may or may not have committed an independent act
of misconduct. In addition, the individuals involved in the act are unidentified.15
In addition to the above the Respondent Union introduced testimony through two
strikers that at no time were they coerced by Respondent. They testified, in substance,
that when the men decided to return to work, the Respondent did not threaten them
in order to keep them on the picket line. Such evidence of whether particular
strikers were coerced is conclusionary, and certainly in no way substantially detracts
from the violative conduct as to the specific incidents herein discussed. It is of some
interest to note, however, that one striker apparently feared union reprisal for
returning to work. LaMarr testified that one Tony Furlano questioned Adley about
the possibility of such reprisals.
In application of these principles, together with the reasons previously given, and
all coupled with the observations and demeanor of the witnesses, it is accordingly
12 The Union also stated in paragraph 6 of its answer that it supported the work
stoppage and the picketing.
13 It is well established that a union is responsible for the unlawful acts of an individual,
because his association and cooperation with union agents bespeaks ratification of his
activities Likewise, the Board has held that where strikers and pickets commit conduct
violative of the Act, such conduct is attributable to the Respondent where union agents
are present or responsible for maintaining an orderly picket line, and where they did not
clearly repudiate such conduct.
14 Officer Campbell testified that he was on duty around 4 to 5 p in. when the plant let
out. Walker worked 8-hour day shifts and at other times during the strike worked on
the night shift. Johnson worked various shifts and was also in charge of a K-9 dog.
15 The incident involving the contractor and his employee is not dated. The incident
involving the unnamed employee and a striker ocurred on April 18, according to Officer
Johnson, and in no way could be a defense to violent conduct occurring prior thereto.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the incidents
herein set forth.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with its business operations 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 commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record , I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 452, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By threatening to inflict bodily injury upon employees, damaging property, and
blocking or interfering with the ingress and egress of employees and others at the
premises of Giles & Ransome, Inc., the Respondent has restrained and coerced the
employees of the Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
New French Benzol Cleaners and Laundry, Inc. and Anne
Burke, Joyce Cone, Frances Durant, Katherine Smith, and
Joyce Vaughn . Cases Nos. 13-CA-2145-1,12-CA-2145-2,12-CA-
2145-3, 12-CA-2145-4, and 12-CA-2145-5. November 21, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 25, 1962, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, counsel for the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error has been committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire 'record in the
case , and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial
139 NLRB No. 88.