Olympic Luggage Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 953 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION and LOCAL 200,
INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION, CIO
Case No. 6-C-1059 .-Decided August 17, 1948
Mr. Joseph Lepie, for the Board.
Mr. Robert J. Hetznecker, of Kane, Pa., for the Respondent.
Mr. Joseph M. Reinard, of Hazlehurst, Pa., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER'
On March 20, 1947, Trial Examiner W. P. Webb issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had not violated Section 8 (1) or (3) of the Act 2 as alleged
in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint against the
Respondent be dismissed. Thereafter, counsel for the Board filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
Trial Examiner, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report'
attached hereto, with the modifications hereinafter set forth.
1. The Trial Examiner based his credibility findings in part upon a
misconstruction of the import of certain testimony given by Board
witnesses. We nevertheless affirm the Intermediate Report because
the Trial Examiner's credibility findings were also based on his obser-
vation of the witnesses and are supported by the record.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the rea-
sons assigned by the Respondent for failing to recall Luck were very
substantial and reasonable, and not trivial or fanciful. The evidence
1 The power of the Board to issue a Decision and Order in a case such as this, where the
charging union has not complied with the filing requirements specified in Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , was upheld by the Board in
Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N. L R. B 90.
2 The provisions of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the
complaint alleged were violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act as
amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
31'ursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Gray].
78 N. L. R B., No. 136.
953
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the record indicates the contrary; each of the assigned reasons
appears insubstantial and unreasonable. However, because we do not
find in the record sufficient evidence to indicate that the Respondent
refused to recall Luck because of the latter's union activity, we agree
with the Trial Examiner's conclusions that the Respondent did not
thereby violate Section 8 (a) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein against
the Respondent, Olympic Luggage Corporation, Kane, Pennsylvania,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Joseph Lepie, for the Board.
Mr. Robert J. Hetznecker, of Kane, Pa, for the Respondent.
Mr. Joseph 31. Rcinard, of Hazlehurst, Pa., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Local 200, International Fur & Leather
Workers Union, CIO, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania),
issued its complaint, dated December 20, 1946, against Olympic Luggage Corpora-
tion, Kane, Pennsylvania, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and the amended charge, accompanied by notice of hear-
ing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the
hearing,' alleged in substance: (1) that on or about January 26, 1946, and at
various times thereafter, the Respondent authorized, instigated, and acquiesced
in expressions and statements which tended to discourage activity on behalf of
the Union; (2) that on or about March 19, 1946, the Respondent discharged
Bernard Luck and thereafter refused to reinstate him for the reason that he
joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees of the Respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; and (3) that by such acts and statements the Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On December 31, 1946, the Respondent filed its answer in which it admitted
certain allegations of the complaint in respect to its corporate existence and the
operation of its business, but denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in
the alleged unfair labor practices.
i The complaint was amended , without objection , to allege that the Respondent was a
Delaware corporation instead of a Pennsylvania corporation.
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 955
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Smethport, Pennsylvania, on January
6, 7, and 8, 1947, before the undersigned, W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the Respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by its representative. All participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the Board's case-in-chief and again at the conclusion of
the hearing, the Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss certain paragraphs of the
amended complaint; also at the conclusion of the hearing, to dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety. Ruling on these motions was reserved by the Trial Exam-
iner. They are now disposed of by the undersigned as indicated below.
At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion by Board's counsel to conform the
pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters was granted by the Trial
Examiner without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties argued
orally on the record before the Trial Examiner No briefs were filed with the
Trial Examiner by any of the parties, although opportunity to do so was accorded
them
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Olympic Luggage Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation,
duly licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its plant and
principal office are located at Kane, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale and distribution of hand luggage During the past 12 months,
which is a representative period, the Respondent caused to be purchased and
delivered to its plant, raw materials valued in excess of $70,000, of which ap-
proximately 70 percent was transported to the plant through States other than
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Respondent
caused to be manufactured at its plant, finished products valued in excess of
$150,000, of which approximately 60 percent was sold and delivered to points
outside of Pennsylvania. The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in com-
inerce within the meaning of the Act, and the undersigned so finds. The Re-
spondent normally employs approximately 30 workers in the plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 200 , International Fur & Leather Workers Union, CIO, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
The record discloses and the undersigned finds that on February 28, 1945, the
Respondent entered into a written agreement with International Fur & Leather
Workers Union of the United States and Canada (Leather Workers' Division),
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations . The contract was
signed by a member of the International Executive Board and a District Direc-
tor, also by the President and negotiating committee of Local 200 The contract
covered the employees of the Respondent . The contract was to continue in full
force and effect for 1 year from date and from year to year thereafter , unless
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at least 30 days prior to any expiration date, either party notifies the other in
writing of its desire to terminate the agreement. Also 30 days prior to any termi-
nation date, either party may notify the other of its desire to amend the agree-
ment, and if no amendment is agreed upon before the expiration date of the
contract, the contract shall be extended by mutual agreement until such amend-
ment is agreed upon The contract provided that employees hired by the Re-
spondent after February 28, 1945, the date on which the contract was entered
into, shall work an aggregate of 6 months before being placed on the seniority
list, but after 6 months' service, seniority shall become retroactive to date of
employment. The contract further provided that during the aforesaid 6-month
period, such employees shall be regarded as temporary employees and no con-
troversy concerning the length of employment of temporary employees shall be
considered a grievance. A further provision of the contract called for a shop
committee of three employees in the plant, which could present grievances to
the Respondent and participate in their adjustment in accordance with a speci-
fied grievance procedure On September 20, 1945, the Respondent and the Union
entered into a supplemental agreement embodying certain provisions that had
not been agreed upon at the time of the execution of the original contract.
On December 6, 1945, negotiations began between the Union and the Respond-
ent for certain amendments to the existing contract. During the period be-
tween December 11, 1945, and January 26, 1946, the Union submitted to the
Respondent a memorandum containing certain proposed amendments and gen-
eral proposals that it desired to be incorporated in the new contract. The first
real bargaining conference occurred on January 26, 1946. The Respondent was
represented by H. D. MacEwen, its president, Robert J Hetznecker, its attorney,
J. T. Jeffrey, sales manager, and A. M. Schwartz, plant superintendent. The
Union was represented by Joseph Al. Reinard, its organizer, and the shop com-
mittee, which consisted of employees Yasurek, Scutella and Luck. Another
meeting was held on February 2, 1946, with the same conferees in attendance.
On February 12, 1946, the Respondent issued a notice to its employees, which
reads as follows :
We regret exceedingly that it is necessary to close down completely, due
to shortage of supplies, particularly locks and board We are unable to
get enough locks due to the steel strike, and the United Paper C. I 0 workers
at the Robert Gair Company from whom we buy our paper board, are still
Qn strike after 11 weeks.
There is no way for us to tell when we shall receive enough supplies to
resume operations but we hope it will be soon. Every effort has been made
on our part to avoid a shut-clown and we will continue to exert every effort
in securing supplies from every available source.
In order that the work in process may be completed, it will be necessary
to lay off some workers ahead of others ; likewise, when production is re-
sumed certain operations will have to be started first and some workers
will be needed sooner than others. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz will notify
each one individually concerning lay-off and the office will recall those
needed when operations are resumed, by notifying each one individually.
Those interested in filing for unemployment compensation may do so by
applying at the office in the Mountain Hose Building on Biddle Street, Tues-
day afternoon, between one and four o'clock, February 19 and presenting
their Social Security card to Mr. Swanson.
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION,
(Signed) H. D. MACE WEN.
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 957
The record discloses and the undersigned finds that on February 12, 1946, there
were approximately 44 employees in the plant. All of these employees, except
11, had worked in the plant the required 6 months and therefore, according to
the provisions of the contract, had acquired seniority status. The other 11,
one of whom was Bernard Luck, had not completed the required 6 months'
service and therefore had no seniority status on February 12, 1946. During the
period from February 12 to 15 inclusive, 40 employees were laid off as follows :
18 on February 12; 13 on February 14; and 9 on February 15, 1946.
On February 16, 1946, the Respondent and the Union entered into an additional
written agreement, the substantive portion of which reads as follows :
ARTICLE 6 SENIORITY
(a) Shall include when production is resumed it is agreed that the
employees will be called back according to seniority and competency should
a percentage of the employees be called back at one time.
Should all employees be returned to work within five (5) working days,
employees on the first operation will be returned first and thereafter those
of succeeding operations in order until all employees have been returned
to work.
Competency in recall shall be as heretofore defined and subject to review,
in accordance with Article 8 hereof [Original Agreement dated February
28, 1945].
In Witness Whereof, the Employer has caused this instrument to be duly
executed by its proper officer, and its common or corporate seal, duly
attested, to be hereunto affixed, and the Union, acting on behalf of the
employees, being duly authorized so to do, has caused this instrument to be
signed by the INTERNATIONAL FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS' UNION OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA (LEATHER WORKERS' DIVISION), by its duly
authorized International Officers and Local Committee, the day and year
first above written.
The Respondent resumed limited operations in the plant on March 11, 1946;
and from that date to March 25, 1946, inclusive, the Respondent recalled 36 of
the laid-off employees in accordance with the seniority provisions in the contract 2
During the period from April 8 to November 18, 1946, the Respondent hired 9 new
employees, 1 of whom was a returned veteran.' During the period from March
25, 1946, to the date of the instant hearing, 17 employees severed their employ-
ment with the Respondent. Therefore the total number of employees in the
plant at the time of the hearing was 12 less than the number at the time of
the lay-off.
On March 23, 1946, the Respondent and the Union entered into a new contract
for 1 year, which superseded all previous contracts.
B. The alleged disciiininatory discharge of Bernard Luck
Bernard Luck began working in the plant on August 20, 1945. He was hired
by H D. MacEwen, president of the Respondent Luck's principal job was
"putting in bottoms," although from time to time, he did other jobs such as
I Those employees were recalled to work as follows. 1 on March 11, 1946 ; 13 on March
19, 1946, 6 on March 20, 1946, 8 on March 21, 1946; 8 on March 25, 1946. ,
The new employees were hired as follows 1 in April 1946 ; 3 in July 1946, 1 in Sep-
tember 1946, 1 in October 1946, 3 in November 1946.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"rolling weltings," and "turning sides." None of these jobs required any'special
skill. Luck joined the Union after he had been working in the plant 2 or 3
weeks, and on or about December 6, 1945, was elected a member of the union
shop committee.4 Prior to his engagement by the Respondent, Luck had been
a member of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and also United Rubber
Workers of America, CIO.
Luck attended the bargaining conferences between the Respondent and the
Union, which were held on January 26, February 2 and 16, 1946. At that time,
the contract between the Union and the Respondent which was executed on
February 27, 1946. Sometime between December 11, 1945, and the first bargain-
were held for the purpose of amending the contract, which was due to expire on
February 27, 1946 Sometime between December 11, 1945, and the first bargain-
ing conference on January 26, 1946, the Union submitted to the Respondent cer-
tain written proposed amendments to the contract, as follows :
1. Union Shop provision.
2. Substantial wage increase with year end bonus, Group Insurance and
Hospitalization.
3. Six paid holidays and double time for holiday work.
4. Vacations : 6 months-1 week ; 1 year-2 weeks ; 3 years-3 weeks ; 5
years and over-4 weeks.
5. Nonrevocable check off ; deduction of fines levied by the local.
6. Top seniority for shop committee.
7. Vacation for returned veterans.
The Union reserves the right to make additional proposals during the course
of negotiations
There is considerable conflict in the testimony of several witnesses as to what
was said at the bargaining conference held on January 26, 1946, in respect to
Luck.
According to Luck, the conference was held for the purpose of negotiating a
new contract; and that during that meeting, Hetznecker, the Respondent's at-
torney, remarked that Luck had not been in the employ of the Respondent for 6
months, therefore he had no right to be on the Shop Committee. Luck's testi-
mony, in this connection, reads as follows :
Q What did Mr. Hetznecker say?
A. He said that I wasn't in the employ of the Company six months and I
didn't have any right to be on the shop committee.
Q. What did Mr. Jeffrey say?
A. He agreed with Mr. Hetznecker.
Q. Did you answer that objection yourself?
A. No.
Q. Did any Union representative answer Mr Hetznecker's or Mr. Jeffrey's
objections to your being present at the meeting?
A. Mr. Reinard did.
Q. And what did Mr. Reinard say?
A. Why, he told them I was elected by the members and I had the right
to be there.
A At that time the shop committee consisted of Anne Yasurek, chairman, Phillip Scutella,
Bernard Luck, and John Espin The contract called for only 3 members on the shop com-
mittee, therefore , Espin was subsequently dropped from the committee by the Union.
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 959
Q. Now, after Mr. Reinard made his statement was there anything
further said about your being ineligible to be on the shop committee?
A. No.
Notwithstanding the fact that Luck testified, as stated above, that after Rein-
ard had said that Luck had a right to be on the shop committee, nothing further
was said about it, after a number of other questions, Luck changed his testimony,
which reads as follows :
Q Now, did you take part in the discussions at that meeting?
A. Yes, sir.
'Q. And can you tell us to what extent that you participated in the dis-
cussions at the meeting?
A. Well, I guess I participated Mr. Hetznecker told me to shut my mouth,
that I was doing too much talking and to let some of the older members do
the talking.
Q. Did he say anything else to you?
A. He said, I was sticking my neck out ; I hadn't been there six months
and I could be fired.
Q. Now, after he made that statement did Mr. Jeffrey say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. MacEwen say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Schwartz say anything?
A. No.
0
Q. Was that statement repeated at all during the course of the meeting?
A Why, in the second meeting it was repeated four or five times.
Q. During the meeting of January 26, 1946, was the statement repeated
at all?
A No.
In respect to the second bargaining conference between the Union and the Re-
spondent on February 2, 1946, Luck testified in substance that he was present
and the discussions were continued with respect to the amendments to the con-
tract ; that Attorney Hetznecker again told him to keep his mouth shut, and to
let some of the other members of the shop committee talk, as he had not served
6 months in the plant and could be fired ; that Hetznecker repeated that state-
ment 4 or 5 times during that meeting ; that Jeffrey agreed with Hetznecker's
statement ; that neither MacEwen nor Schwartz said anything ; that Scutella,
another member of the shop committee, said that after February 18, 1946, Luck
would acquire a seniority status; that Reinard said that Luck had been elected
a member of the shop committee and therefore had a right to be present; and
that during that meeting, Hetznecker and Reinard left the meeting together, but
returned after a few minutes.
Joseph M. Reinard, union organizer, testified that he was present at the bar=
gaining conference on January 26. 1946; that he and Luck did practically all of
the talking for the Union ; and that Attorney Hetznecker said, at that meeting,
he thought someone else should be on the Shop Committee in the place of Luck,
as he had not been in the employ of the Respondent for 6 months. Reinard's
testimony, in this respect, reads in part as follows:
Q. Now, at this meeting were any objections raised to Luck's being present
at the meeting and also being a member of the shop committee?
A. Yes, there was.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. And who raised that objection or objections?
A.. Mr. Hetznecker and Mr. Jeffrey.
Q What objection did Mr. Hetznecker and Mr. Jeffrey have to Luck's
being on the committee?
A. They said that they did not think he should be on the committee be-
cause he hadn't been an employee of the plant for six months and that they
thought that some one who had been there longer should be represented on
the committee.
Q. Did you take any position at that meeting with respect to their
objections?
A. Yes, I told them that inasmuch as they had been elected by the member-
ship that they had a right, or that he had a right to be on the committee.
Q. Did you state anything further?
A. I stated that there was nothing in the contract that stated otherwise.
Q. Was there any further discussion after your statement?
A. No.
Q. Did Luck continue to remain at the meeting?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did Luck take part in the discussions?
A. He did.
Notwithstanding the fact that, in his testimony above, Reinard answered "No,"
to the question "Was there any further discussion after your statement?," after
a number of other questions, he was again asked if any other remarks had been
made concerning Luck being on the negotiating committee. His later testimony
in this respect reads as follows :
Q. Now, at any time during that meeting were any remarks made to Luck
as a result of his active participation in the meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell us who made these remarks to Luck?
A. Mr. Hetznecker.
Q. And what did Mr. Hetznecker say?
A. Mr. Hetznecker told Luck that he was talking too much, that he didn't
have his six months' seniority in and that he should let some of the com-
mittee who had been there longer do more talking.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. Said that Luck was sticking his neck out and he could be fired.
Q. Did any other Company representatives make any statements at the
meeting?
A. I think Mr. Jeffrey said, "That is right."
Q. Now, after-was that statement repeated at all during the meeting
or was it only said once?
A. Just once.
Q. Did Mr. MacEwen say anything?
A. No.
Q. Or Mr. Schwartz?
A. No.
Q. Did Luck continue to participate in the discussions after the statement
was made to him by Mr. Hetznecker?
A. Yes.
Q. To what extent?
A. He didn't do any less talking. He did probably the same amount as he
had before.
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE ' CORPORATION 961
' Reinard further testified that he was present at the second bargaining confer-
ence which was held on February 2, 1946; that Hetznecker said several times
during that meeting that Luck was doing too much talking and that he was
sticking his neck out and could be fired ; that during the progress of that meeting,
Hetznecker requested him to go with him out into the hall ; and that they did so,
and Hetznecker told him that it would be advisable for him to tell Luck not to
do so much talking as he had not acquired any seniority and was liable to be fired.
Phillip Scutella testified that the reason Luck was elected to th eunion shop
committee was because he had belonged to unions before he came to work for
the Respondent and therefore had more experience in union affairs than the
other employees ; that he was present at the meeting of January 26, 1946, at
which the provisions of a new contract were discussed ; and that Attorney Hetz-
necker and Sales Manager Jeffrey stated that they thought the Union should have
an older employee , in point of service, than Luck on the shop committee, as the
latter had been working in the plant only about 5 months. Scutella 's testimony
in this respect reads as follows:
Q. Now, did anybody , anyone of the Union representatives reply to Mr.
Hetznecker 's and Mr. Jeffrey 's objections as to Luck being on the committee?
A. Mr. Reinard.
Q. What did Mr. Reinard say?
A. He told them that according to the contract he had a right to be there,
that the members of the Union had elected him, so he was there.
Q. After Mr. Reinard made that statement were there any further objec-
tions raised as to Mr. Luck's presence ? Strike that . Was there any further
objection to Mr. Luck being on the shop committee'?
A. No.
Q. Now, up to that date had the Company , as far as you know, raised
any objections to Luck's being on the shop committee?
A. No.
Notwithstanding the fact that Scutella , in his testimony above, stated that
after Reinard had said that Luck had been elected to the shop committee and had
a right to attend the meeting, no further objection was made to Luck's being on
the committee , after a number of other questions , Scutella was again asked by
Board 's counsel if any remarks or statements were made to Luck. Scutella's
later testimony reads as follows :
Q. Now, as a result of Luck's activities-strike that . As a result of Luck's
active participation at the meeting , Were any statements or remarks made to
him?
A. Mr. Jeffrey said that he was doing-Mr. Hetznecker said, told him that
he was doing too much talking and after all he had not been there six months
and according to the contract he could be fired.
Q. After Mr . Hetznecker made these remarks did Mr. Jeffrey say anything?
A. No.
Q Did Mr. MacEwen say anything?
A. No.
Q Did Mr. Schwartz say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Jeffrey , Mr. Schwartz , Mr. MacEwen , say anything about those
remarks during the entire course of that meeting?
A. No.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Scutella further testified that he attended the second bargaining conference
on February 2, 1946; that Hetznecker made the same remarks 3 or 4 times
that he had previously made about Luck ; that Jeffrey said at that meeting
Luck was doing a little too much talking and that he should let the other mem-
bers of the committee talk, as they had worked in the plant longer than Luck;
that he, Scutella , said that by the time the next meeting was held Luck would
have majority status; and that Reinard again said that Luck had been elected to
the shop committee.
Anne Yasurek testified that she attended the bargaining conference between
the Respondent and the Union on January 26, 1946, and that she heard Attorney
Hetznecker say in substance at that meeting that Luck had not completed 6
months service in the plant and therefore he had no seniority , and that the Union
should have members on the shop committee who had seniority ; that Luck was
doing too much talking and he should let the older members of the shop committee
do the talking ; and that he could be discharged . Yasurek 's testimony was self-
contradictory . She first testified on direct examination that after Hetznecker
had made the statement in regard to Luck, Jeffrey agreed with Hetznecker.
Later during direct examination she testified that Jeffrey had nothing to say at
that meeting.
According to the credited testimony of J. T. Jeffrey, the Respondent 's sales
manager, he attended all of the bargaining conferences between the Union
and the Respondent in January and February 1946. In respect to the meeting
on January 26, 1946, Jeffrey 's testimony, which is credited by the undersigned,
reads as follows :
I was there at the meeting ... The Union presented their demands
on the Company . We spent most of the time at that meeting discussing the
demands, having some of them clarified and then we recessed or adjourned
until the next meeting.
Jeffrey's testimony as to what occurred at the second bargaining conference,
which was held on February 2, 1946, which is credited by the undersigned, reads
as follows :
At that meeting , we made our counter-proposals to the Union's de-
mands. . . . Well , in the discussion which followed , in the bargaining
negotiations, Barney Luck assumed the role of chief spokesman and started
out with an issue that had already been settled and was included in the
contract . I think at the time, I am sure I remember I kidded him, said :
"Barney , you are discussing something now that we have already agreed
upon." Then he continued to carry on the discussion and raised other issues
and repeated that, and in every case , they had been included in the contract,
agreed to and settled in the previous contract . Now, we spent a good deal
of time at that meeting just listening to comments from Barney on such
issues that were already settled , until it go to the provoking period . I asked
Barney , I asked, "Have you seen this contract ? Do you know anything about
what is in the contract now?" Barney said "No." And I said, "Do you
mean to say that you have come to these negotiations without any knowledge
of what is now in our contract and are assuming the role of chief spokesman
in these negotiations ?" He said, "I have not seen the contract." I then
turned to Joe Reinard , who was the organizer, the chief representative of the
Union , and I said to Joe, I said , "Joe, is it possible that you can have your
shop committee take up all this time knowing that he [Luck ] hasn't seen a
,copy of this contract and doesn ' t know anything about what is agreed upon
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 963
in the Company relations at this time?" And he said, Joe admitted that he
[Luck] had not seen a copy of the contract. . . . And I said to Joe, "How
come?" Joe said-Well he made some excuse which I just can' t remember
the exact words that Joe says, but he agreed, of course, and admitted that
Barney [Luck] had not seen the contract. Well, we continued the negoti-
ations and this same line of comments continued until it got intolerable.
And our counsel [Hetznecker] brought Barney to task. I think, at that
time Barney said, Counsel made some reference to his being a new employee
with the Company on probation only and Barney asked what that meant,
"Do I have to leave the meeting?" "Am I not welcome here?" And counsel
[Hetznecker] said that he was perfectly welcome to sit in on these negotia-
tions but be felt that it would be more becoming if he listened a little more,
and in view of the fact that he wasn't familiar with what our contract
contained.
Jeffrey's further testimony in respect to what transpired at that meeting, which
is credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
Q. (By Hetznecker ) Did I, at that point, Mr. Jeffrey, in taking Mr. Luck,
to task, threaten him as to his employment or the termination of his employ-
ment or the firing from his job?
A. No.
Q. At the Company's plant?
A. No, nothing of that sort was said.
Q Did any other executive of the Company intimate that to Mr. Luck at
any time?
A No. Shall I proceed?
Q. Just one other question. Following my taking Mr. Luck to task did Mr.
Reinard make any comment?
A. Yes, when Luck said, "Does that mean that I am not welcome here?"
Joe [Reinard] turned to Luck and said, "No, this probation means that you
can be fired ; you may lost your job. You can lose your job." And counsel
[Hetznecker] said then, "I didn't say such thing, or mean any such thing.
If I had meant to convey that, I would have said so." I remember tlrat very
distinctly.
Q. Now, did negotiations thereafter continue?
A. Yes, sir, they did.
Q. Did Mr. Luck sit in on those negotiations?
A. He did, without any objection on our part.
Q. Continue, Mr. Jeffrey.
A. We continued our negotiations, and I think that from that time on
which Luck continued to take his normal part in the negotiations that his
questions were more on the issues involved.
According to the credited testimony of Robert J. Hetznecker, the Respondent's
Attorney, he attended all of the bargaining conferences between the Union and
the Respondent which were held in January, February and March 1946; that
during the second meeting on February 2, 1946, he suggested to Luck that he
was doing too much talking. Hetznecker's testimony in regard to that meeting
reads as follows :
I believe it was the second meeting held between the Respondent and the
Union that I took Mr. Luck to task. . . . The circumstances surrounding
that incident was that the Respondent had presented counter-proposals to
the Union's demands which had been previously presented to the Respondent.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A discussion of those counter-proposals had taken place for a short period
of-time, and then the so-called real. negotiations commenced. Mr. Luck, it is
true, was the chief spokesman for the Union committee. He led practically
all of the negotiations on behalf of the Union. Sometime during those nego-
tiations Mr. Luck had raised several issues, and Mr. Jeffrey had asked Mr.
Luck concerning his knowledge of the agreement Mr. Luck stated tO Mr.
Jeffrey that he had not read the contract. Mr. Reinard, in turn, told Mr.
Jeffrey that a copy of the contract had not been given to Mr. Luck up to
that time. As I recall, some of the incidents of these issues, they dealt with
the designation of the commencement of the work day and the quitting time
of the work day. In answer to that particular issue it was pointed out to
Mr. Luck that the work week was defined within the contract. There was
also the question of pay between individuals within the plant doing the same
type of work and, as I recall, I, as Counsel for the Respondent, pointed out to
Mr. Luck that there was a merit system of wages within the plant pertaining
to wage payments to the employees. There was also the question raised as
to a minor doing a man's work or a boy doing a man's work and why should
he not receive the same amount of pay Some time in the course of the
meeting I said to Mr. Luck, "Mr. Luck, you are a member of this committee.
It would seem to me that it would be better for you to listen than to do so
much talking." At no time did I ever threaten Mr. Luck with the possibility
of his being fired, nor did I ever intimate such a thing to Mr Luck. I do
recall that Mr Reinard, following the censuring of Mr. Luck, turned to Mr.
Luck and said , "Barney, what Bob means is that you are a probationary
employee and the Company can fire you." I, in turn, said to Mr Reinard, '
"Joe, I meant no such thing. If I had meant that, I would have said it.
Let's get on with the negotiations " Mr. Luck thereafter took as active a
part as ever in the negotiations and at no time thereafter did I censure Mr.
Luck in any way. . . . At no time thereafter in the course of any of the
negotiating meetings did Mr. Luck-was Mr. Luck taken to task by me. I
did not in the course of any of the negotiations at the Respondent Company's
plant leave the conference meeting with Mr. Reinard alone, nor did I at any
time discuss with Mr. Reinard the possibility of Mr. Luck being discharged
or dismissed from the Respondent 's employ.
According to the credited testimony of President MacEwen, he attended all of
the bargaining conferences between the Union and the Respondent in 1946; that
at the first meeting, which occurred on January 26, 1946, which was a shoe t meet-
ing, nothing occurred except the presentation of the Union's demands and some
discussion of them; and that nothing whatsoever was said at that conference by
Attorney Hetznecker concerning the conduct of Luck. MacEwen's further testi-
mony, which is credited by the undersigned, states in substance that at the second
negotiating conference on February 2, 1946, Attorney Hetznecker remarked to
Luck that he, Luck, was repeatedly bringing up matters that were not under dis-
cussion but which had already been settled and agreed upon, and that he should
"talk less and listen more," that Reinard, the Union's organizer, then turned to
Luck and said, "What Bob [Hetznecker ] means , Barney [Luck], is that you are
only a temporary employee and can be fired" ; that Hetznecker replied, "Joe
[Reinard] I meant no such thing. Had I meant that, I would have said it"; that
Hetznecker told Reinard that he had never been responsible for any employee
losing his job ; that the negotiations then continued with Luck present ; that Luck
said. "Maybe I should leave the meeting" ; that Hetznecker replied, "You have
.a perfect right to stay at the meeting" ; that Reinard said Luck was a duly elected
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 965
representative of the Union and had a right to be at the meeting; and that at no
time during the meeting did Hetznecker and Reinard leave the meeting together:
According to the testimony of Superintendent A M Schwartz, which is
credited by the undersigned, he attended all of the bargaining conferences between
the Union and the Respondent which were held in January, February and March
1946; that the only time Attorney Hetznecker said anything about Luck's talking
too much was at the second conference held on February 2, 1946. Schwartz's
testimony in this report reads as follows :
Mr. Hetznecker told Mr. Luck being that he is a new member and he had
admitted that he is not acquainted with the contract, he never saw one, he
shouldn't have so much to say, and let the other members, the other members
of the committee who have had more experience than he did to take part.
Schwartz denied that Hetznecker said anything at that, or any other meeting,
to the effect that Luck could he or might be fired Also that at no time did Hetz-
necker leave a meeting in company with Reinard alone.
The conflict in the testimony of the Board's and the Respondent's witnesses
centers around the question of what occurred at the bargaining conferences on
January 26 and February 2, 1946. According to the Board's witnesses-Luck,
Reinard, Scutella, and Yasurek, at the January 26 meeting, Attorney Hetznecker
stated that Luck should not be a member of the shop committee because he had
not completed 6 months' service with the Respondent and, under the provisions of
the contract between the Union and the Respondent, he was a temporary employee
without any seniority status. Also that Hetznecker, at that meeting, stated that
Luck was talking too much, and that under the terms of the contract he had no
seniority status and he could be fired. Also that these statements were repeated
by Hetznecker at the meeting of February 2, 1946. According to the Respondent's
witnesses Attorney Hetznecker, President MacEwen, Sales Manager Jeffrey, and
Superintendent Schwartz nothing occurred at the meeting on January 26, except
that the Union's proposals were discussed, and nothing was said by Hetznecker
or any other representative of the Respondent about Luck being on the shop
committee or talking too much. And that whatever statements were made by
Hetznecker in regard to Luck were made at the second meeting on February 2,
1946.
After a careful analysis of the testimony of all the witnesses, the undersigned
concludes and finds that the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses more nearly
reflects the true facts in respect to the conferences. Whether the statements in
regard to Luck were made by Hetznecker at the first or second conference is of
minor importance in evaluating their import, but it is of considerable importance
in respect to the credibility of th-; witnesses. The undersigned finds that the
January conference, which was of short duration, was concerned with the ex-
change of proposals in regard to certain amendments to the contract: that at
the second conference on February 2, Hetznecker said that Luck should do less
talking and give the Union organizer and the other members of the shop commit-
tee an opportunity to express themselves, since Luck had admitted that he had
never read the contract and since he kept insisting on bringing up matters that
were not on the agenda, but which had already been agreed upon in the contract;
that such conduct by Luck retarded and interfered with the negotiations ; that
at no time did Hetznecker or any other representative of the Respondent say
that Luck was "sticking his neck out" or could be fired ; and that no objection
was made by the Respondent to Luck's being a member of the shop committee
or being present during the negotiations. In fact, when Luck asked if he should
798767-49-v of 7S 62
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leave the meeting, Hetznecker told him that lie was perfectly welcome to sit in
on the negotiations , but that he felt it would bey more .becom -ing df he listened a
little more, especially in view of the fact that he was not familiar with those
terms of the contract which had already been agreed upon. Both Luck and Rein-
ard first testified that after Hetznecker had remarked that Luck should not be
on the shop committee because he was a temporary employee , nothing more was
said about it. However , after counsel had repeated the question as to what
"else" was said by Hetznecker , these witnesses stated that Hetznecker said Luck
was sticking his neck out and could be fired. The undersigned credits the denial
of Hetznecker and finds that he did not make the statements accredited to him
by the Board 's witnesses to the effect that Luck was sticking his neck out or
that he could be fired.
According to the credited testimony of Jeffrey , in a meeting between the Union
and the Respondent in March 1946 at which George 0 Pershing , district director
of the Union , was present , to the question of the Union having a probationary
employee on the Union shop committee was discussed , and Pershing said that
the Union made a mistake in putting a man on the shop committee who had not
been in the employ of the Respondent for 6 months . It is significant that the
new contract which was executed on March 23 , 1946, contains the provision that
"No temporary employee shall be a member of the shop committee " The new
contract was signed by only two members of the shop committee , Yasurek and
Scutella . It was not signed by Luck.
As related above , on February 12, 1946, Luck , together with 17 other employees,
was laid off by the Respondent due to the shortage of raw materials , such as
locks and cardboard . Subsequently , most of these employees were recalled to
work, as related above However, Luck was never recalled to work by the
Respondent.
According to President MacEwen ' s credited testimony , the next day after Luck
had been laid off, he telephoned to MacEwen and requested information as to
when operations in the plant would be resumed . He said that he desired this
information because he had prospect of a job, which he would take unless the
Respondent was going to recall him very soon . MacEwen told him about the
shortage of locks a nd cardboard , and further stated to him that the Respondent
had reemployed six returned veterans and was not seeking any further male
employees at all, but that he would give him more information the next day.
On February 14, 1946 , the Respondent wrote a letter to Luck, which reads as
follows :
DEAR Mn. LUCK :
After considering your telephone request of yesterday, asking whether
or not you were going to be recalled here, we are writing to give you all
the information we have. As you know, we are out of board and our sources
for this card board is now in its 12th week of strike. We have made five
telephone calls to them in the past three weeks but get the same answer;
that they do not know when they can fill our orders placed months ago.
In the meantime we have ordered board from various small jobbers but
they have repeatedly failed to keep their delivery promises and just when
a supply will be received we cannot tell
Further, as you know, it was a matter of locks that really stopped us
this week and in talking with our source of supply on locks, they told us,
when we called on them, that the steel strike has held up their supply and
they cannot give us any definite information It is possible they may ship
us a small quantity of locks within a few weeks but they cannot be definite
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 967
about it. We have been working from hand to mouth for several months
on locks, having shipments made to us by express at considerable extra
expense, in order to get them here quickly.
Then, the third item which we are continually short of is leather and
we have no definite assurance from any of our sources, of sufficient quantity
for continuing full operations here
Another matter which we discussed with you, has been the number of
returning service men, all of whom we have put to work when they made
application, although we were not seeking any male help. Rather than
displace men in our employ when the service men returned here we put
them on and laid no one off, hoping that we could get more supplies and
avoid cutting down our force, but the result was a complete stoppage of
work, as per notice posted on the clock.
Inasmuch as we cannot tell when supplies will be received, or when opera-
tions will be resumed; nor are we able to tell what quantity of supplies will
come in, or how many persons can be put back to work when these supplies
are received, we suggest that, in your own interest, you seek employment
elsewhere and do not turn it down if you can get it, because of the indefinite
status of our operations due to the above factors.
We further wish to state that your work here, both in quantity and
quality was all that anyone could expect. It was very satisfactory.
Yours very truly,
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION,
H. D. MACEWEN.
- According to the credited testimony of Harold D. Curry, personnel director
at Holgate Brothers Toy Company, the next day after Luck had been laid off by
the Respondent, he [Luck] filed an application for employment at Holgate Broth-
ers Toy Company. And in answer to the question where had he been employed
previously, Luck inserted "Kane Dairy Corporation." Luck did not show on the
application that he had ever worked for the Respondent Luck began working
for Holgate Brothers Toy Company on February 26, 1946, and he was still
employed there at the time of the instant hearing.
According to Scutella and Yasurek, in the latter part of March 1946, they spoke
to Superintendent Schwartz about calling Luck back to work. They were informed
that they would have to see President MacEwen. After 2 or 3 days, they saw
MacEwen and told him that three employees, who had been hired subsequent to
Luck, had been called back to woik and they wanted to know why Luck had not
been called back. MacEwen read to them Paragraph (b) of Article 6 of the
original contract, dated February 28, 1945 which reads in part as follows :
. . . Employees hereafter hired shall work aggregate of six (6) months
before being placed on the seniority list, and when seniority shall have been
acquired, it shall be accumulative from the first day of employment During
the (6) months period such employees shall be regarded as temporary em-
ployees and no controversy concerning the length of employment of tempo-
rary employees shall be considered a grievance 5
According to Yasurek, on or about April 1, 1946, she submitted a written "Re-
quest for Adjustment of Grievance" with Superintendent Schwartz, which reads
in part as follows :
6 Luck was employed on August 20, 1945, and laid off on February 12, 1946, therefore he
lacked about 1 week of having worked the required 6 months Consequently he had not
acquired any seniority status at the time of his lay-off.
968 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We feel that Bernard Luck & John Espin 6 should have been called to work
after the layoff because they only lacked a few days to reach their seniority,
before they were all laid off. There's others who were hired after these two
men and they have been called back and we don't think its right.
On the same date, Superintendent Schwartz endorsed on the Request as follows:
APRIL 1, 1946.
We call your attention to paragraph (b) under Article 6 in our working
agreement.
(Sgd.) A. M. SCHWARTZ.
According to Reinard, on or about April 5, 1946, he spoke to President MacEwen
with reference to calling Luck back to work ; that MacEwen referred him to Attor-
ney Hetznecker ; and that about April 29, 1946, he spoke to Hetznecker about it
and was informed that under the terms of the contract, the Respondent was under
no obligation to recall Luck as he had not been employed by the Respondent for
the required 6-month period and therefore he was a temporary employee and had
no seniority status.
According to Attorney Hetznecker's credited testimony, in the latter part of
April 1946, he met Luck on the street in Kane, Pennsylvania, and Luck said to him,
"What are they going to do about my recall at the plant?" Hetznecker replied,
"Mr. Luck, that is a question for your union to take care of " Luck then said,
"You can tell those sons-of-bitches for me that I would not go back to work for
them if they gave me the plant." Hetznecker replied, "I don't know who you are
referring to in calling them those names." Luck replied, "I mean Mr. Jeffrey and
Mr. MacEwen." Hetznecker then said to Luck, "Mr. Luck, I am not your errand
boy. If you care to make that statement, you either go yourself to Mr. MacEwen
and Mr. Jeffrey or ask your union representative to go to them."
According to President MacEwen, Luck was not recalled to work by the Re-
spondent for several reasons MacEwen's testimony in this connection, which is
credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
The several reasons, I will try to be as brief as I can, as explicit. First, his
work was taken over by returned veterans. We had even considered within
six weeks preceding the time of the lay-off, reducing our working force and
laying off temporary employees, and we pushed hard for materials trying to
keep everyone on, and finally the result is we had to make an extended lay-off.
His work was taken over by returned veterans, that is one reason. Another
reason is that Mr. Arthur Swanson of the USES, United States Employment
Service, communicated with me and told me that Mr. Luck had work. And,
this was considered when I looked over the lists of those that we would recall.
I called, I telephoned Mr. Curry of Holgate Brothers to ascertain this at a
later time and asked him if he considered the work given to Mr. Luck as being
permanent, if they considered it that way. He said, "Yes." And I think
those are the only reasons I can think of, except that he hadn't made
application.
6 The amended complaint does not allege that the Respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of John Espin He was hired on August 20, 1945, the
same day that Luck was hired, and was laid off on February 15, 1946, three days after Luck
was laid off Espin was never recalled to work by the Respondent Espin having indicated
to the Union that he did not desire to continue in the employ of the Respondent, the Union
took no further action in his behalf.
OLYMPIC LUGGAGE CORPORATION 969
Concluding Findings
The record fails to substantiate the allegations of the amended complaint
that on or about March 19, 1946, the Respondent terminated the employment of
Bernard Luck and thereafter failed and refused to recall, reinstate or rehire
him because of his membership and activities in the Union and because he
engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the Respondent for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and in order
to discourage membership in the Union.
The Respondent and the Union have been under contractual relation since
February 28, 1945, and the new contract, executed on âIarch 23, 1946, is still
in full force and effect. Their labor relations have been harmonious and
mutually satisfactory, up to the time of the Respondent's refusal to recall
Luck after the gaueral lay-otf on February 12, 1946. The lay-offs were made
strictly in accordance with seniority as provided in the contract. Those em-
ployees, like Luck, who had not attained any seniority status at the time of
the lay-off, were laid off first. The amended complaint contains no allegation
that the Respondent engaged in any unfair labor practice with respect to the
lay-offs. The next day after his lay-off, Luck applied for work at Holgate
Brothers Toy Company, and on February 26, 1946, started to work for that
Company. He is still employed there. On February 16, 1946, at a bargaining
conference, the Respondent and the Union, as related above, entered into a special
agreement, with respect to "seniority," which would govern the recall of the
laid-off employees when the plant resumed operations. Under the provisions
of this agreement, the employees would be called back to work according to
"seniority" and "competency." Luck, at the time of his lay-off, had not acquired
any seniority status, as he had not been in the employ of the Respondent the
required period of 6 months. The Respondent was under no legal obligation
to recall Luck after his lay-off, and its failure to do so constituted no violation
of the Act. The courts have held that an employer may discharge an employee
for a good reason, a poor reason or no reason at all, and the reason is not a
concern of the Board so long as the provisions of the Act are not vitiated e The
reasons assigned by the Respondent for not recalling Luck were not trivial or
fanciful, but were very substantial and reasonable, as testified to by President
MacEwen. It is difficult to believe that the Respondent would refuse to recall
Luck, in order to discourage membership in the Union and, at the same time,
enter into a contract with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its
employees.
Upon-the entire record in the case, the undersigned concludes and finds that
the Respondent's refusal to recall Bernard Luck to work subsequent to his
lay-off on February 12, 1946, was for reasons other than those alleged in the
amended complaint, and that by such refusal the Respondent has not violated
the Act as alleged in the amended complaint.
C. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The amended complaint alleged that on or about January 26, 1946, and at
various times thereafter, the Respondent authorized, instigated, and acquiesced
4 The seniority provision in the contract dated February 28, 1945, reads in part, as fol-
lows : "Employees hereafter hired shall work an aggregate of six ( 6) months before being
placed on the seniority list. "
8 See Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company V. N . L. R. B., 138 F. ( 2d) 86, 90, 91
(C. C. A. 3).
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in expressions and statements which tended to discourage activity on behalf of
the Union . In view of the findings above made that the failure of the Respondent
to recall Bernard Luck back to work, subsequent to his lay -off on February 12,
1946 , was not in violation of the Act , and since there is no evidence in the record
of the Respondent having engaged in any acts of interference , restraint, and
coercion proscribed by the Act, the undersigned finds that the Respondent has not
engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, as alleged in
the amended complaint.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case , the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent , Olympic Luggage Corporation , Kane, Pennsylvania, is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
2. Local 200 , International Fur & Leather Workers Union, CIO , affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the
entire record in the case, the undersigned hereby recommends that the complaint
herein be dismissed in its entirety.
As -provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel
for the Board may , within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and
Regulations , file with the Board ,'Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an
original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with
the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or counsel
for the Board may, within the same period , file an original and four copies of a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report . Immediately upon the filing of such
statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing
the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a
copy with the Regional Director . Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.65.
As further provided in said Section 203 39, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of service of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
W. P. WEBB,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 20, 1947.