Local No. 85, United Association of Plumbers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1386 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to com-
ply herewith.5
5In the event that this Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within ld days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL offer Billy Johnson his former job and pay him for wages he lost
since May 25, 1965.
All our employees have the right to join or assist Communication Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union, to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such union or
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT question our employees as to their union or concerted activity,
or threaten to discharge or discriminate against employees , or interfere with
them in any way, because of their union or concerted activity.
DEKALB TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full renistatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone No.
534-3161.
Local No. 85, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO and Dobson Heavy Haul, Inc. and
Riggers and Machinery Erectors, Machinery Movers Local
Union No. 575, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
No. 7-CD-122. February 10, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Dobson Heavy
Haul, Inc., herein called Dobson or the Charging Party, alleging that
Local No. 85, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, had violated Sec-
156 NLRB No. 117.
LOCAL NO. 85, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS 1387
tion 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees
of Dow Corning Corporation, herein called Dow Corning, to cease
work for the purpose of forcing or requiring Dobson to assign certain
work in dispute to members of the Respondent rather than to mem-
bers of Riggers and Machinery Erectors, Machinery Movers Local
No. 575, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Riggers
Local 575. A hearing was held on various dates from June 1, 1965,
through July 29, 1965, before Hearing Officer Brian S. Ahearn. All
parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The-rulings of the Hearing Officer
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. Briefs were filed by the Charging Party and the Respond-
ent and have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Dow Corning Corporation is a Maryland corporation having its
principal place of business at Midland, Michigan, where it is engaged
in producing silicone products for industrial use. Said corporation
annually ships finished products valued in excess of $50,000 from its
place of business within the State of Michigan directly to points out-
side the State of Michigan.
Dow Chemical Corporation is a. Maryland corporation having its
principal place of business in Midland, Michigan, where it is engaged
in the production of industrial chemical products. During the year
ending December 31, 1964, said corporation shipped finished products
valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business in the State of
Michigan directly to points outside the State of Michigan.
Fred Korkoske, Ernest Korkoske, and John Korkoske, d/b/a Kor-
koske Plumbing and Heating, constitute a partnership formed under
the laws of the State of Michigan. During the year ending Decem-
ber 31, 1964, said partnership rendered construction services valued
in excess of $50,000 to Faulkner Construction Company.
Faulkner Construction Company is a Michigan corporation having
its principal place of business in Midland, Michigan. During the
year ending December 31, 1964, said corporation rendered construc-
tion services valued in excess of $50,000 to Dow Corning Corporation.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dobson Heavy Haul, Inc., is a Michigan corporation having its prin-
cipal place of business in Bay City, Michigan. During the year end-
ing December 31, 1964, said corporation rendered services valued in
excess of $50,000 to Dow Chemical Corporation.
We find, as stipulated by the parties, that each of the Employers
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties further stipulate that the Respondent and Riggers Local
575 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in dispute
The work in dispute is the moving, setting, and erecting of package
boilers on previously prepared foundations.
B. The basic facts
The dispute arose in the following manner. The purchasing depart-
ment of Dow Corning Corporation purchased a 47-ton package boiler
from Wickes Manufacturing Company, f.o.b. jobsite. Pursuant to the
above purchase order, Wickes hired Dobson to deliver the boiler to the
jobsite at Midland, Michigan. Subsequent to the above purchase
order, Dow Corning's purchasing department entered into a separate
contract with Dobson for the installation of the boiler once delivered.
Dobson's employees, represented by Riggers Local 575, delivered the
boiler to the jobsite late in the afternoon of December 29, 1964, and
returned the following morning to install the boiler pursuant to its
contract with Dow Corning. Meanwhile, members of Respondent
employed by subcontractors at the Dow Corning plant threatened to
and did temporarily walk off the premises protesting the assignment
of the installation of the boiler to members of Riggers Local 575.
The record herein shows that Carter, one of the Dow Corning offi-
cials, received a telephone call from McQuinn, Respondent's business
manager, on December 29, 1964, in which McQuinn stated that the
work of placing package boilers had historically been performed by
fitters, that "his men were hot under the collar," that he did not want
any trouble, and that he hoped that Dow Corning would not use rig-
gers to perform the disputed work. On December 30, 1964, McQuinn
was advised that Dobson's employee's were getting ready to set and
erect the boiler. McQuinn immediately drove to the Dow Corning
plant where he talked to the employees of Korkoske Plumbing and
LOCAL NO. 85, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS 1389
Heating represented by Respondent. Korkoske was engaged in other
work on the project. At approximately 11:45 a.m., on the same day,
McQuinn met with the various officials of Dow Corning to discuss the
matter in dispute. In the interim, the fitters employed on the project
were preparing to walk out at noontime and did so while the above
meeting was being held. At the conclusion of the above meeting,
Dow Corning officials decided to suspend the performance of the dis-
puted work and instructed Dobson to that effect. McQuinn went to
the front gate immediately after the conclusion of the meeting and
ordered the fitters to resume work. Subsequently, Dow Corning paid
Dobson the contract price and awarded the disputed work to its general
contractor, Faulkner Construction, which, in turn, subcontracted the
work to Korkoske Plumbing and Heating which completed the instal-
lation of the boiler with fitters.
C. Contentions of the parties
Dobson and Riggers Local 575 contend that the Respondent threat-
ened Dow Corning with a work stoppage and caused the employees
of Korkoske Plumbing and Heating to engage in a work stoppage to
force or require Dow Corning to reassign the moving , setting, and
erecting of a boiler from the employees of Dobson to fitters who are
represented by Respondent.
Dobson, in contending that the disputed work should be awarded to
riggers represented by Riggers Local 575, relies upon : (1) a National
Labor Relations Board certification; (2) its collective -bargaining
agreement with Riggers Local 575; (3 ) custom and practice in the
Saginaw , Michigan , area; ( 4) the skill and experience of riggers; and
( 5) the desire of Dow Corning 's initial assignment of the work.
Riggers Local 575 asserts that its claim over the disputed work is
supported by : (1) a National Labor Relations Board certification ;
(2) its collective -bargaining agreement with Dobson; ( 3) custom and
practice in the Saginaw , Michigan , area; ( 4) efficiency ; ( 5) economy;
(6) safety; and ( 7) the fact that Dow Corning initially assigned the
disputed work to riggers.
The Respondent, in support of its claim to the disputed work, relies
upon : (1) the fact that Dow Corning reassigned the disputed work
from riggers to fitters after Respondent made its claim to the disputed
work; (2) past practice on jobsites of Dow Corning; (3) the fact that
fitters have demonstrated the requisite skill to perform the disputed
work efficiently and economically by actually moving, setting, and
erecting package boilers to the satisfaction of Dow Corning and other
firms; (4) the constitution of the United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; (5) decisions and awards of
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Dis-
putes; and (6) its agreement with the United Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
which has been invoked in the past to award the disputed work to
fitters.
D. Applicability of the statute
In a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board is only
required to find that there is reasonable, cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before making a determination of the
dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practice has arisen. In
so finding, we need not conclusively resolve conflicts in testimony."
Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe, from the
record before us, that the actions of the Respondent constituted induce-
ments and threats and that it was these actions which caused Dobson's
employees to cease working. We further conclude that there is reason-
able cause to believe that these actions were undertaken in an attempt
to force Dow Corning to assign the work here in issue to Respondent's
members rather than to Dobson's employees, who are represented by
Riggers Local 575.
Accordingly, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act has been violated and that this
dispute is properly before us for determination under Section 10(k)
of the Act.
Merits of the Dispute
1. Work and skills
The moving and setting of package boilers requires that after the
boiler is delivered to the jobsite, it be removed from a lowboy (i.e., a
specially constructed truck) with the assistance of a crane and placed
on wooden or metal rollers. These rollers serve as a walkway along
which the boiler is moved to a prepared concrete foundation. Gen-
erally a system of snatch blocks is arranged and, with the use of a
winchtruck providing the power, the boiler is moved to the founda-
tion. Once over the foundation, the boiler is lowered into place by the
use of jacks. It is then set and leveled and the previously installed
piping system is connected to the boiler. In the moving of such
machinery, special tools and equipment are used, such as cranes, winch-
trucks and A-frames, logs or rollers, timbers, snatch blocks, come-
alongs, slings, chockers, shackles, pinch bars, jacks, and as the record
herein indicates, even ball bearings. Most of the above tools and equip-
ment are the stock-in-trade of rigging contractors. It is noted, how-
ever, that these rigging contractors are also in the equipment and tool
1 Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Western Electric
Company, Incorporated ), 141 NLRB 888, 893
LOCAL NO. 85, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS 1391
rental business and on occasion rent to other contractors, including
other rigging contractors. On the job in which this dispute arose, the
fitters installed the package boiler with the use of Dobson's rollers.
Although the above equipment and tools are used by riggers, we find
that such use is not exclusive as most of the equipment and tools are
used also by other crafts in the construction industry.
The evidence shows that the basic skill involved in the moving of
heavy equipment is a knowledge of, and the handling of, weights.
Riggers Local 575 and Respondent have apprenticeship training pro-
grams of 2 and 5 years, respectively. The training of fitters includes
rigging work. It is true that riggers perform this type of work exclu-
sively and that fitters are primarily involved in other aspects of con-
struction work. However, the record herein shows that fitters have
performed the disputed work in the past to the satisfaction of their
employers. The record further shows that boilers are often delivered
by rigging contractors f.o.b. jobsite and that the installation is left to
the general contractor responsible for the completion of the construc-
tion project.
On the basis of the complete record in this case, we find that fitters
as well as riggers are competent and qualified to perform the disputed
work.
2. Efficiency, economy of operations, and safety
It is clear from the record that work of the type involved in this
dispute is normally assigned either to riggers or fitters, depending
upon which class of contractors the installation contract is given to.
With respect to efficiency, Dobson's foreman testified that riggers
could have completed the disputed work in half the time that it took
the fitters. It is true that riggers exclusively perform this type of work
whereas fitters are primarily engaged in other aspects of construction,
and, therefore, it is probable that riggers could perform the disputed
work in less time than fitters. However, as mentioned above, both
crafts are competent to perform the disputed work. We find that the
matter of efficiency is not necessarily determined by the amount of
time it takes to install a boiler. It may well be more efficient for the
contractor to assign the work to fitters because of the continuity of
their work both before and after the installation of a boiler. With
respect to safety, it also appears from the record that this factor favors
neither craft. The record further shows that from the standpoint of
efficiency and safety the assignment of the work of installing package
boilers to either craft has been satisfactory to the employers in the
general area where this dispute arose. In view of the foregoing, we
find that the factors of efficiency, economy of operations, and safety
favor neither craft.
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Certification and constitution
Dobson is a member of the Michigan Cartagemen's Association.2
There is at least a 17-year history of collective bargaining between
employer members of the Association and Riggers Local 575. Through
the Association, Dobson individually entered into the contract nego-
tiated by the Association, which contract covered the entire period in-
volved herein, its effective dates being May 1, 1962, through April 30,
1965. This contract covers work which includes: "Setting of boilers,
all boilers and mud drums, and the erection of steel work in connection
with boilers." Dobson has had no collective-bargaining agreement
with the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent has made no claim to
be recognized as the bargaining agent for any of Dobson's employees.
Both Dobson and Riggers Local 575 assert that the claim over the
disputed work is supported by the Board's certification in Machinery
Movers and Erectors Division, cited in footnote 2 below.
Respondent on the other hand asserts that its constitution clearly
indicates that fitters have traditionally exercised jurisdiction over the
type of work in dispute in this case.
In Machinery Movers and Erectors Division, cited below, the Board
stated, "its certification in a representation proceeding in the construc-
tion industry is not a jurisdictional award but merely a determination
that a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit have selected
a particular labor organization as their representative."
Further, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over Dobson's
hiring of riggers to perform the disputed work, nor is there dispute
over Korkoske's employment of fitters when Dow Corning's change
of assignment resulted in the latter firm's employment to do the work.
We find that neither the above certification nor the constitution are
dispositive factors since the parties to this dispute were neither par-
ties to such proceedings nor subject to the above constitution. It is
clear, therefore, that the certification and constitution favor neither
union for the disputed work herein.
4. Areal industry, and company past practice
Dobson, the Charging Party, seeks a jurisdictional award on behalf
of riggers for all future work of the type in dispute herein within the
geographical confines of its collective-bargaining agreement with Rig-
gers Local 575. Both disputants have offered considerable evidence
as to various jobs in which they have performed the disputed work.
2 On May 27, 1957, the Board Issued a Decision and Direction of Election in Machinery
Movers and Erectors Division, Michigan Cartagemen 's Association , 117 NLRB 1778 An
election was held and Riggers' Local 575 was certified as the collective -bargaining repre-
sentative for Dobson and all other employer members of the Michigan Cartagemen's
Association ( Machinery Movers and Erectors Division).
LOCAL NO. 85, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS 1393
The record discloses that Dobson, and other rigging contractors iden-
tified in the record as Bender, Van Harren, and Hahn, are the rigging
contractors handling almost all of the "heavy haul" work in the
Saginaw-Bay City area. The evidence shows that the above rigging
contractors, using riggers, have, in addition to their "heavy haul"
work, installed approximately 22 boilers. The evidence also shows
that fitters have installed approximately 29 boilers. The evidence
further shows about 12 jobs in which boilers were installed but fails
to disclose who did the actual installation. Aside from the above num-
ber of jobs, the evidence is general in nature as to dates, exact locations,
and weights of the boilers installed. However, it is apparent that
most of the jobs mentioned have been performed within the past 10
years in the State of Michigan.
On the basis of the above evidence, we find that both riggers and
fitters have performed work of the nature of the disputed work in the
past. It appears that riggers have generally installed heavier boilers
than those installed by fitters. However, it is noted that at the Dow
Administration Building fitters installed a 50-ton boiler, which is
slightly heavier than the boiler in dispute herein. Mr. Lafferty, the
head of the field construction department of Wickes Manufacturing
Company, one of the largest boiler manufacturers in the country, testi-
fied "that approximately 40 percent of the boilers that they sell are
f.o.b. Wickes plant, 40 percent are f.o.b. jobsite and the remaining
20 percent include installation as well as delivery." Wickes has a
collective-bargaining agreement with Riggers Local 575 and only hires
rigging contractors when required to deliver and/or install boilers.
The evidence further shows that there appears to be no dispute over
the practice of rigging contractors hiring riggers for this type of work
when they obtain contracts for the installation of package boilers, or
over the hiring of fitters by mechanical subcontractors when they are
responsible for the installation of boilers. When disputes do arise,
they usually involve, as in this case, the character and identity of the
contractor who receives the installation contract.
On the basis of the above evidence, we find that the area and indus-
try practice establish that both riggers and fitters have performed the
work in dispute on a large number of jobs. The record further shows
that on four or five occasions when the disputed work has been con-
tested by these two unions in the State of Michigan, the disputed work
has been awarded to fitters under the terms of an interim agreement
between the two Internationals which is discussed hereinafter.
The record in the instant case also shows that company practice has
been for the construction department of Dow Corning to issue con-
tracts for all construction projects at plant facilities. In the past, the
construction department has always awarded boiler installation work
to its general contractor, Faulkner Construction, which in turn has
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subcontracted the disputed work to mechanical subcontractors, such
as Korkoske Plumbing and Heating. The record indicates that 12
such contracts for the installation of boilers have been awarded by
Dow Corning under this procedure and that under all previous con-
tracts the disputed work has been performed by mechanical subcon-
tractors employing fitters. However, for the first time in the instant
case, the initial award was made by the engineering department rather
than by the construction department as in the past.
The record further shows that, after the dispute arose, Dobson was
paid its contract price by Dow Corning and the disputed work was
completed under the procedures used in the past. Ultimately, Faulk-
ner assigned the work to Korkoske who completed the work using
fitters. Mr. Rolka, the head of the Dow Corning Construction Depart-
ment, testified that one of the reasons why he decided to hold up the
disputed work was because he felt that there had been a misassign-
ment. Rolka further testified that when the work was assigned to
Faulkner, he knew that Faulkner was going to award the work to a
mechanical subcontractor employing fitters.
On the basis of Dow Corning's prior practice in assigning contracts
for the disputed work and on the basis of the above testimony by
Rolka as to the misassignment, it is clear that Dow Coming's practice
has been to assign the disputed work to Faulkner and thus ultimately
to fitters.
5. Joint Board awards
Respondent cites two previous decisions of the National Joint Board
for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in support of its claim
herein for the disputed work. The earlier decision concerned a dis-
pute arising in 1923 between fitters and riggers over work similar to
that involved in this case. The decision, which appears in the so-called
Green Book, p. 109, states : "Boilers, Moving, Handling and Placing-
October 3, 1923-Work in question being vital part of Steamfitters
equipment is therefore the work of the Steamfitters." A later award,
which involved a dispute similar to the one in the instant case, occurred
in 1952 in Texas; the National Joint Board awarded the work to
Fitters.
However, so far as the record shows, Dobson, the Charging Party,
is not a party to an agreement binding it to accept Joint Board deci-
sions, and this dispute was not submitted to the Joint Board.
While the foregoing decisions are, of course, not controlling, they
are a relevant factor bearing on our determination .3 It is clear that
this factor weighs in favor of an award to the fitters.
3Local 300, United Association of Journeymen, etc. (D'Annunzio Bros., Inc. ), 152 NLRB
707; Local 69, United Association of Journeymen, etc. (Bellezza Company, Inc), 149
NLRB 599.
LOCAL NO. 85, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS 1395
6. Interim agreement
Respondent further asserts that as a result of the 1952 dispute in
Texas, the two Internationals in 1953 entered into an Interim Agree-
ment for the Settlement of Disputes between the two unions and, since
that time, this agreement, which to some extent reaffirms the 1923 Joint
Board decision, supra, has been invoked by International representa-
tives of the two unions in favor of fitters four or five times in the
State of Michigan. When the dispute in the instant case arose, Dow
Corning officials were informed by McQuinn, Respondent's business
manager, of this agreement. Later in the same day, McQuinn's claim
was substantiated when Rolka, one of the Dow Corning officials, was
advised in a telephone conversation with Poole, the International
representative of the Riggers : "that the Riggers do 90 percent of this
work in the State of Michigan but when Fitters are involved, they
generally back off." Here, of course, none of the employers is a party
to this interim agreement nor bound by it. Nevertheless, the record
does establish that when the interim agreement has been applied in
the past to similar disputes between the two disputant unions, the
work has been awarded to fitters. We treat this interim agreement
and the practice thereunder as a relevant factor in making our
determination.
CONCLUSION
TJpon consideration of all of the evidence in this proceeding, we
shall assign the work in dispute to fitters. However, such assignment
is limited to the particular job where the instant dispute arose. As
mentioned above, the area and the industry practice affords no basis
upon which to make a broader assignment of the disputed work and
serves only to establish that members of both Respondent and Riggers
Local 575 possess the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the
disputed work and do perform such work in the general area in which
this dispute arose. However, the record discloses that until the initial
assignment of the disputed work herein, such work had always been
performed at the Dow Corning, Midland, Michigan, plant by mechan-
ical subcontractors employing fitters. It is evident from the record
that the normal procedure was not used in the assignment of the dis-
puted work herein. As mentioned above, Dow Corning, when it was
informed of the Respondent's claim and threatened with a work stop-
page, canceled its contract with Dobson, paid the contract price, and
reassigned the work according to its past practice. We find that Dow
Corning's reassignment of the disputed work was consistent with its
past practice and we see no reason why this assignment should not
217-919-66-vol. 15 6- 8 9
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stand, especially in view of the fact that such assignment is consistent
with awards made by the Joint Board with the interim agreement
between the Internationals.
Accordingly , we shall determine the instant jurisdictional dispute
by deciding that fitters, rather than riggers, are entitled to the work
in dispute. In making this determination, we are assigning the work
to the employees who are represented by the Respondent , but not to
that Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record in this proceeding , the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute.
Fitters employed by Korkoske Plumbing and Heating who are rep-
resented by Local No. 85, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of
moving, setting , and erecting the package boiler at building No. 403
at the Dow Corning, Midland, Michigan , plant.
Pilot Freight Carriers , Inc. and Albert Eugene Bradshaw.
Case No. 11-CA-2701. February 10, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 18, 1965, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E. Plaine issued his
Decision herein, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board 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 Trial
156 NLRB No. 126.