May Aluminum, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 26 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with
the National Labor Relations Act, we notify you that:
WE WILL, upon request, execute the June 3, 1964, agreement reached by us
and International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, the agreement to be
effective from that date to at least the next renewal date provided therein follow-
ing signature, and give retroactive effect to all the terms of said agreement, in-
cluding but not limited to the provisions relating to wages and other benefits and
make whole employees for any losses suffered by reason of the Respondent's
refusal to execute the agreement, but if no request to execute is made, we will,
upon request, bargain collectively with said union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all employees in the following unit:
All our production and maintenance employees excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
WE WILL NOT, by threats or promises, try to get you to withdraw from the
above-named union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act, to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in any union
activities.
MAYES BROS., INCORPORATED,
Employer.
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 Office, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. Capitol
8-0611, Extension 4271, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
May Aluminum, Incorporated and Aluminum Workers Interna-
tional Union. Case No. 23-Cf1-1907. June 17,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 7, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
153 NLRB No. 6.
MAY ALUMINUM, INCORPORATED 27
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondent, May Aluminum, Incorporated,
El Campo, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
so modified :
1. Add to paragraph 2(a) the following sentence: "The backpay
shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis
Plumbing cC Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716."
2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, the present paragraph 2(b) and those sub-
sequent thereto being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces."
3. Add the following immediately below the signature line at the
bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision :
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Serv-
ice Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was tried before Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom in Wharton, Texas, on
February 9 and 10, 1965 . The complaint , dated November 23, was issued pursuant
to a charge dated September 21 and an amended charge dated October 16, all in 1964.
It alleges numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , by Respondent , May Aluminum, Incorporated , through interroga-
tion of its employees, and threats , made during the Union's organizational campaign.
It also alleges that three employees were discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel dismissed the allegations as to two
of the three discharged employees and, in his brief, concedes there is no proof in
the record as to three of the allegations of violation of Section 8(a)(1). Thus the
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case involves the question as to whether one employee, Thelton Perkins, was dis-
criminatorily discharged , and whether various persons in behalf of Respondent, all
admittedly in supervisory status, violated Section 8 (a)(1) in the manner alleged.
The Union won the representation election held in Respondent 's plant. There is
no charge of violation of Section 8(a) (5).
Briefs have been filed in behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon
the entire record , my consideration of the briefs , and observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses , I find and conclude that Respondent violated the Act substantially
as charged in the complaint except as to the concessions made by counsel for the
General Counsel and the speeches made to the employees in Respondent 's behalf
by supervisory personnel.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent is a manufacturer of aluminum extrusions , and other aluminum mate-
rials and products I find as facts the allegations of the complaint as to the nature
and extent of Respondent 's business , admitted by the answer , and therefore conclude
that , within the meaning of the Act, Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce and in a business affecting commerce ; and also find and conclude that the
Union named in the complaint is a labor organization , a matter stipulated by
the parties.
In the late summer or early fall 1964 , the Union began an organizational cam-
paign among Respondent's employees . Soon after Respondent learned of such
activity it started a campaign in opposition to the Union . Ralph Burgess, Respond-
ent's personnel manager, was asked on direct examination , "You all , I take it, did
speak out against the Union , is that true' " He revealed fairly the position of Re-
spondent with respect to the Union with this answer , "Oh, yes, we were giving points
why we didn 't feel . that we needed one "
Notwithstanding the findings hereinafter contained that Respondent did violate
the Act, it cannot be said that the evidence reveals gross hostility toward the Union
during the organizational effort or that the violations were flagrant-if hostility, and
violations of the law, can be thus categorized . There can be little doubt that in the
speeches made in behalf of Respondent to the employees in opposition to the Union,
and also in some of the private contacts made by persons in supervisory status with
the employees , Respondent went out of its way to advise the employees that the
choice as to whether the Union should be selected as bargaining representative, was
the choice of each individual employee. Counsel for Respondent in both direct and
cross-examination put emphasis on this circumstance and made the most of the
proposition that the opposition to the organizational effort was so ineffective, as
revealed by the election result, that such opposition could not possibly be construed
to be violative of the Act. Unfortunately, however, for Respondent , neither the
repeated assurances to their employees that they should vote as they saw fit, nor
Respondent 's failure in the campaign of opposition , has any probative value where,
as here, the preponderance of the credible evidence reveals that Respondent's conduct
did interfere with the rights of the employees and was coercive.
Surveillance
Subparagraph 8(o) of the complaint alleges that ". . . Supervisors Thomas R.
McDermott and Ralph W . Burgess, kept employees under surveillance as to meet-
ing places , and during other concerted activities these employees were engaging in."
McDermott is director of industrial sales and Burgess is personnel manager
It is my opinion, and I find and conclude , that the testimony of these two men,
both ranking high in Respondent 's supervisory force, proves the allegations of the
complaint as to unlawful surveillance.
Burgess testified that on a certain afternoon during the organizational campaign,
he and McDermott were in the company parking lot as the employees at the end of a
shift were getting into their cars to leave the plant. He related that he and his asso-
ciate were there to see if union literature was being passed out at the time He
testified in detail concerning an incident in which he and McDermott , in his car,
followed two employees , C. L. Miller and Baldmero Vallejo, as the two drove away.
Burgess testified that the employees left the lot in unorthodox fashion, crossing over
a ditch bordering the lot, instead of taking the regular exit, and that the employees
did "gun" their car some, though not excessively, as they started.
The pursuit lasted for several blocks along a somewhat circuitous route that lead
first to the employee Vallejo's home , and then to a place of business where the two
supervisors left the trail of the employees . However, according to witness Burgess
MAY ALUMINUM , INCORPORATED 29
this was not the end of the matter. After Burgess and McDermott turned around
to return to the plant, they saw the two employees go into the Jones Motel. Burgess
and McDermott then followed into the motel grounds, backed out, and went back
to the plant. The rease.i given by Burgess for following the employees into the
Jones Motel was "just curiosity." Space in the Jones Motel served as union head-
quarters during the organizational campaign.
This frank recital of witness Burgess, which was confirmed in its essential parts by
McDermott, forms a sufficient basis for finding a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Furthermore I credit the testimony of the two employees Miller and Vallejo as
to this same incident, and on the basis of their testimony, plus the testimony of the
supervisors, Burgess and McDermott, as hereinbefore set forth, I find and conclude
that Respondent through this act of their supervisors, violated Section 8 (a)( 1 ) as
charged in the complaint.
The Interrogation and Threat
This incident of surveillance gives color and background to other conduct of Re-
spondent, alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(1). The evidence reveals a pat-
tern of rather extensive interrogation of employees by various management people.
While it does not appear that Respondent was extremely agressive in this campaign
of opposition as hereinbefore indicated, or that the contacts made were strongly
coercive, the credible evidence does reveal that the following incidents occurred:
(a) Employee A. T. Rutledge testified that his supervisor, George Bennett, came
to him where he was working and asked if Rutledge had a union card. At another
time this same employee casually met this supervisor and Sales Director McDermott
in a tavern where Bennett and McDermott were spending some time on a Saturday
afternoon during the union campaign. There, McDermott told Rutledge that Re-
spondent would probably have to close the plant before it could pay union wages.
(b) Employee John Cisneros testified that Personnel Manager Ralph Burgess
and Sales Director McDermott, came to the witness' home and asked him if he had
a union card. He produced a card and showed it to them and when they offered to
return it, he declined to take it. At this time, the witness testified, McDermott
indicated that he heard about these cards and asked the witness who the "ring-
leader" was.
(c) Employee Thelton Perkins testified that Krenek, plant superintendent, called
him into his office and asked him about the Union. The superintendent said he
understood the employees were supposed to have a union meeting; the witness re-
sponded affirmatively and Krenek said, "Well, what was secret about ito" and added
"this is a mighty small town to try to have a secret meeting." Perkins is the em-
ployee who was discharged September 18, 1964, about a week following this inter-
view with Krenek.
(d) Employee C. L. Miller testified that, at the suggestion of his foreman, he
went to the office of Personnel Director Burgess to see if he could get assistance in
connection with a need he had for money. He testified credibly that Burgess asked
him immediately how he was coming along with the Union and when the witness
answered that he was not aware of a union, Burgess said "someone said you have
been flashing cards around the building"; then after reference to the employee's
problem, Burgess indicated that he did not believe he could give any help.
(e) Employee Lionel Barrera testified that he had been present when employee
Thelton Perkins had asked his foreman, Ed Hendrix, if Perkins could take his car
to town and leave it for repairs. Barrera also testified credibly that after the con-
versation between Hendrix and employee Perkins, and after Perkins' subsequent dis-
charge, Personnel Manager Burgess asked the witness if a union man or the Labor
Board had contacted witness for statements concerning Perkins. He testified that
Sales Director McDermott asked him the same question and advised that Respond-
ent would be unable to help witness because he was not helping Respondent.
(f) Employee Geronimo Gonzalez, a janitor, testified that Sales Director McDer-
mott called him into McDermott's office and there told him that if he ever caught him
passing out union cards he would fire him. McDermott admitted having had a
conversati.,n with this employee about the time and place of Gonzalez' testimony,
but said that his threat to fire Gonzalez related only to passing out cards on com-
pany time and that he told Gonzalez if he wanted to stand out in the street and pass
out cards that was his business.
(g) Witness Vallejo, mentioned above, testified that his supervisor, Ed Hendrix,
asked him if he had any union cards, also when the union meetings were being held,
and whether the employee was attending the meetings.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(h) Employee Willard C . Forrest testified that: Sales Director McDermott called
employees into the office of the witness ' department and talked to them ; he called
Forrest in and said he would like to know why the witness had changed his mind;
he had thought the witness was a company man; but now it was very plain he was
on the side of the Union . Witness admitted he was, and testified that McDermott
said he would like to know why Forrest had changed his mind . Witness declined to
give the reason , but indicated he would be glad to tell McDermott after the election.
All of the witnesses mentioned in paragraphs ( a) through (h), above, with the
exception of Miller and Forrest appeared to be timid , somewhat awed by the proceed-
ing, and some had difficulty with language . I was, however, impressed with the
sincerity of all of them and find in their testimony which I credit , even when dis-
puted by Respondent 's witnesses , substantial support for each of the findings made
in said paragraphs . I make this finding of credibility notwithstanding that some
of the witnesses , when subjected to skillful and persistent cross-examination by
counsel for Respondent , were led into admissions not entirely consistent with their
direct examination . I find however, that their recitals on direct examination con-
stitute reasonably accurate statements of the facts as the witnesses understood the
facts to be.
Witness Miller was aggressive , rather than timid , and talkative with a predisposi-
tion to remember too precisely certain dates and times of events in question. He,
more than any other witness, appeared to be a zealous partisan ; even so, I credit his
testimony mentioned above in paragraph ( d) where he said that Burgess questioned
him about the Union and advised that he had heard Miller had been flashing cards
around the building. The setting for this conversation with Burgess , and the man-
ner in which the witness related this part of his story, leaves no doubt in my mind
that it took place as he testified.
Witness Forrest appeared to be neither timid nor awed, even by the presence of
management personnel at the hearing where he testified against their interests.
Furthermore he gave the impression of sincerity and objectivity , and displayed un-
usual capacity for accuracy in recollection of previous events. I consider his testi-
mony highly credible.
On the basis of the credited testimony of these witnesses , the established opposi-
tion of Respondent to the Union , the extent of the interrogation , and the surveil-
lance of McDermott and Burgess-a preponderance of the evidence-I find and
conclude that each incident discussed in paragraphs ( a) through ( h), above, was
coercive in nature and constitutes a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The Speeches
The complaint alleges that McDermott made two speeches to the employees and
Burgess one ; that McDermott threatened in each of his two speeches to lay off em-
ployees if the Union came into the plant; and that Burgess made the same threat
in the speech he made.
It is impossible from the record to ascertain with any accuracy just what either
of these supervisors said in any substantial portion of their speeches . From their
own testimony , as well as the testimony of some of the employee witnesses , it can be
said with certainty that each speaker made it clear to the employees that the choice
as to whether or not the Union should be selected as the bargaining representative of
the employees , was a choice to be exercised by each employee.
While certain witnesses testified that the speeches contained statements constitut-
ing threats to close the plant and to lay off employees , such testimony is uncertain
as to who made the statements , just what was said and when , and is then qualified
on cross-examination.
Thus the record on the speeches is sufficiently vague and uncertain that I cannot
find Respondent violated the Act with respect to the speeches . It may very well be
that the speakers did make the threats alleged, for the allegations cover essentially
the same statements found to have been made in the two speakers ' private conversa-
tion with employee Rutledge.
The Discharge of Thelton Perkins
The resolution of this issue is the most difficult in the case. I find and conclude,
however , on the basis of the testimony hereinafter summarized , that Respondent dis-
charged Perkins because of his union activity and in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
On the morning of his discharge Perkins went to his foreman , Ed Hendrix, and
asked if he could take his car to town for repairs . Perkins testified that Hendrix
told him he could do so and that when he returned to the plant he should clean up
MAY ALUMINUM, INCORPORATED 31
acid that had spilled from a tank onto a walkway making it slippery, as often
happened in the manufacturing process.
Hendrix, on the other hand, testified that he told Perkins he could take his car
to town for repairs but to do it during the lunch break and that Perkins should im-
mediately go to the task of cleaning the walkway. Permission to leave the plant
during the lunch period appears to be required inasmuch as a short lunch break is
a part of the regular 8-hour workday.
Perkins left the plant in his automobile immediately after the conversation with
Hendrix pursuant to permission he claimed to have received. As he was leaving
the plant he was observed by Plant Superintendent Krenek. Krenek called Hendrix
and asked if Perkins was on the job. Hendrix advised that he thought he was but
would find out and call back. Hendrix testified he looked for Perkins and could
not find him, called Krenek and reported that Perkins could not be found. Krenek
then asked Hendrix to send Perkins to the front office when Perkins showed up.
When Perkins returned to his duty station Hendrix took him to the office of Burgess.
There, as Burgess testified, he discharged Perkins for leaving the plant during work-
ing hours in direct violation of his foreman's orders.
I credit the testimony of Perkins that Hendrix told him he could take his auto-
mobile to town as of the time of the request. I make this finding notwithstanding
Hendrix's contradiction. As I have indicated, I was impressed with Perkins' sincerity.
I believe there were pressures on Hendrix that colored his testimony.
I make this credibility resolution, and the finding based thereon, in part, also, on
the testimony of witness Forrest whose veracity I credit highly. I believe Forrest's
testimony that Hendrix came to Forrest following the Perkins discharge and told
Forrest that Perkins actually was not fired for going to town in violation of
Hendrix's orders but rather for his union activity. I consider it somewhat signif-
icant that while the discharge was the decision of Personnel Director Ralph Burgess,
it was triggered by Krenek who had questioned Perkins about his union activity, who
observed the employee away from his duty station and called the matter to the
attention of the foreman, and who did not testify.
Witness Barrera testified that he was present and overheard the conversation
between Hendrix and Perkins. On direct examination he testified without equivoca-
tion that Hendrix told Perkins he could take his car to town then. On cross-
examination he so qualified his story that it is difficult to, and I do not, give it weight
in this fact determination.
I find and conclude that Respondent had knowledge of Perkins' union activity by
virtue of the conversation the plant superintendent, Krenek, had with Perkins about
a week prior to the discharge in which Krenek inquired into Perkins' union activity.
I find and conclude that Respondent by discouraging membership in a labor
organization through discrimination in employment, and by interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that the
Respondent offer Thelton Perkins immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
or privileges, and that the Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of
a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date
of the discrimination to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings during said period, with interest.
In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees to Section 7 of the Act
I shall recommend further that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in
any manner upon the rights guaranteed in said section.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, May
Aluminum, Incorporated, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Aluminum Workers International Union, or in
any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their union or concerted activities , or in any other manner discriminat-
ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(b) Interrogating or threatening employees concerning their union activities.
(c) Engaging in or attempting to engage in surveillance of concerted or union
activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Thelton Perkins immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or
privileges , and make him whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this De-
cision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, all
payroll and other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay , if any, due
Thelton Perkins and the right to reinstatement under the terms of this Decision
(c) Post at its place of business in El Campo , Texas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ." ' Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 23, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representa-
tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
at least 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all places
where notices to employees customarily are posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2
IIf this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "As ordered by" shall
be substituted for "As recommended by a Trial Examiner of" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a United States Court of Appeals, the words
"a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order of " shall be inserted
immediately following " as ordered by."
2 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
we are posting this notice to inform our employees of rights guaranteed to them by
the National Labor Relations Act:
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees because they engage in activities
on behalf of Aluminum Workers International Union, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT question or threaten you concerning your union activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in or attempt to engage in surveillance of your con-
certed or union activities.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National
Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in union
activities , or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities.
WE WILL offer Thelton Perkins immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position or an equivalent one, and pay him backpay to cover the earnings which
he lost because we discharged him, with interest.
All of you are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of a labor organization.
MAY ALUMINUM , INCORPORATED,
Employer.
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.
SOUTHWESTERN OF DALLAS OPTICAL COMPANY, ETC. 33
If the employees have any questions concerning this notice or whether the Em-
ployer is complying with its provisions, they may communicate with the Board's
Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas,
Telephone No. Capitol 8-0611, Extension 296.
Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-Optics, Inc.
and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-2174. June 17, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1965, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
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 Jenkins].
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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent, Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-
Optics, Inc., Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed November 5, 1964,1 by the International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board, acting through the Regional Director for
Region 16 of the Board, issued his complaint on January 7, 1965, against Southwest-
ern of Dallas Optical Company, hereinafter called Southwestern and Tru-Optics, Inc.,
1 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1964 unless specifically noted otherwise.
153 NLRB No. 9.
79 6-027-66-vol. 153-4