Reservation Feed Mill

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1317 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

RESERVATION FEED MILL 1317
nology ; and $246.75 in sales to the United States Government, total-
ing $5,246.75, less than 4 percent of the Employer's entire business.
The remaining sales, amounting to $148,674.52, were retail sales.
It is the rule of the Board that where an employer is engaged in
retail and nonretail operations, the Board will apply nonretail juris-
diction standards to such combination enterprises, except in the case
where the nonretail aspect of the Employer's operations is clearly
de minimis.l In the circumstances of the instant case, because the
Employer's nonretail business totaled only $5,246.75, less than 4 per-
cent of its total business, we find that the Employer's operations fall
within the de m^nimis exception to the Board's rule for combination
retail and nonretail enterprises. Accordingly, the commerce stand-
ards established by the Board for retail operations are applicable to
the Employer. As the Employer's operations do not meet the juris-
dictional standard for a retail business, we find that it will not effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
i The T H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732, 1733.
a Carolina Supplies and Cement Co, 122 NLRB 88.
Wilbur K . Logan , d/b/a Reservation Feed Mill and Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union No. 524.
Cases Nos. 19-CA-1806 and 19-CA-1830. March 28, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 16, 1959, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
126 NLRB No. 159.
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Wilbur K. Logan,
d/b/a Reservation Feed Mill, Wapato, Washington, his agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees regarding their union activities, affil-
iations, or sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 524, or any labor organization
of his employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of his
employees or by discriminating in any manner in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employ-
ment, except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Anthony Wright and Albert G. Gatlin immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
1 As the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence does not demonstrate that the
Trial Examiner 's credibility findings are incorrect , we hereby adopt them . Standard
Dry Well Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 352 (C.A 3)
2 No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner 's 8(a) (1 ) finding based on interroga-
tion. In adopting the Trial Examiner ' s finding that employees Anthony Wright and
Albert G Gatlin were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3), we
rely particularly on Respondent ' s admission to William Cramer in May 1959 that the
Respondent had "terminated Albert Gatlin and Anthony Wright because they brought
,the union in "
8 We find without merit , and accordingly reject, Respondent ' s charge of bias and preju-
dice on the part of the Trial Examiner Also not shown to be justified is Respondent's
request for a reopening of the record , which is hereby denied.
RESERVATION FEED MILL 1319'
leges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at his establishment at Wapato, Washington, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." I Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps.
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I hereby notify my employees that :
I WILL NOT interrogate employees regarding their union activi-
ties, affiliations, or sympathies in a manner constituting interfer-
ence, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
I WILL NOT discourage membership by any of my employees in
'Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union
No. 5'24, or in any other labor organization, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate employees or by discriminating in any
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment, except as authorized by Section
8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
I WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce my employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
I WILL offer to Anthony Wright and Albert G. Gatlin immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges , and make them Whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of my discrimination against
them.
All my employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becom-
ing or remaining , members of any labor organization , except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WILBUR K. LOGAN, D/B/A RESERVATION
FEED MILL,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon two separate charges duly filed on June 19, 1959, and July 21, 1959, re-
spectively, by Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union
No. 524, herein called Local 524, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel 1 and the Board, through
the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued a
consolidated complaint, dated August 13, 1959, against Wilbur K. Logan, d/ib/a
Reservation Feed Mill, herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charges and the consolidated complaint, together with notice of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon Respondent and upon Local 524.
Specifically, the consolidated complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged that
Respondent discharged Anthony Wright and Albert G. Gatlin, on or about March 1,
1959, and thereafter refused to reinstate either of them, because each had engaged
in protected activities.
Respondent duly filed an answer on August 21, 1959, denying the commission
of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Yakima, Washington, on October
13, 1959, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
I This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
RESERVATION FEED MILL 132T
Respondent were represented by counsel; Local 524 by an official thereof. Full
opportunity was afforded the parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record
at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before
November 2, 1959.2 Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from
Respondent's counsel which have been carefully considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Respondent is engaged at Wapato and at Toppenish, Washington, in the process-
ing and sale of grain and feed. During 1958, Respondent's gross sales amounted
to more than $500,000. During the said year Respondent's purchases of material,
which were either shipped to him directly from points located outside of the State of
Washington or were purchased by him in the State of Washington from persons
who had imported such material into said State, amounted to more than $50,000.
Upon the above admitted facts, the Trial Examiner finds that during all times.
material herein Respondent was, and now is, engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 524 and Local 760 are labor organizations admitting to membership em-
ployees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion; the Discharges of Wright and Gatlin
1. The pertinent facts
On or about January 18, 1959,4 Hershel Andrews, a business agent and or-
ganizer of Local 760 of the Teamsters Union,5 met with four employees of Re-
spondent 6 and signed them up in his organization. A day or two later, Wright and
Gatlin asked Foreman C. W. Meyer 7 to sign a Local 760 membership application
card. Meyer declined to do so maintaining that, because of his supervisory status,
he "wouldn't take either side."
About 3:30 p.m. on Friday, January 23, Andrews, accompanied by Jim Farring-
ton, secretary-treasurer of Local 760, called upon Respondent and informed him
that they represented the majority of his employees and desired to sit down and
discuss the matter. Logan questioned Local 760's majority status and asked to see
the cards the employees had signed. Farrington and Andrews refused the request,
adding that the majority status could be determined by an election. Logan there-
upon stated that he desired a few days to think the matter over. The meeting con-
cluded with the understanding that Logan would telephone Farrington and Andrews
the following Monday morning, January 26.
About 4 p.m. the same day, January 23, Wright returned to Respondent's place
of business after making a delivery. As he was about to get a hose to wash the
2 At the request of the General Counsel the time to file briefs was extended to Novem-
ber 13, 1959
3 After the close of the hearing, the General Counsel filed with the Trial Examiner a
motion, with proof of service of copies thereof upon the other parties, to correct certain
inaccuracies appearing in the stenographic transcript of the hearing. Said motion papers
are hereby received in evidence and marked "Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1 " Thereafter,
Respondent's counsel filed "Consent and Objections To Correction of Record," with proof
of service thereof upon the other parties Said papers are hereby received In evidence and
marked "Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 2." Respondent's objections are hereby overruled
and the General Counsel's motion is hereby granted.
4 Unless otherwise noted all dates hereinafter mentioned refer to 1959
5 About mid-April, Local 760 surrendered jurisdiction over Respondent's employees to
Local 524
6 Namely, Gerald Cameron, Anthony Wright, Lupe Juarz, and Albert Gatlin.
7 Also referred to in the record as Bill Meyer.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
truck , Logan asked him what he was doing . When Wright told Logan that he was
going to wash the truck , Logan stated , to quote Wright's credible testimony , "Forget
that, your check is in the office ." 8 After finishing some other jobs, Wright, ac-
companied by Gatlin and Cameron,9 went into the office where , according to
Wright's credible testimony-which, in the main , is corroborated by Gatlin's
credible testimony-the following transpired:
Wilbur [Logan ] was standing there with our checks and he went to give them
to us and Albert Gatlin asked him if we were fired , and he didn 't say anything.
We asked him two or three times. Wilbur said , "Just consider yourself fired,
if you want to work for the union you go elsewhere . "
[Logan] said he thought he was paying us a decent wage . . . Gatlin spoke
up and said that if he had a business he would pay his guys a decent wage
Logan told him he wished he would get a business of his own some day
so he could.
Gatlin , Wright , and Cameron left Respondent 's premises upon receiving their pay-
checks.
The following day, Saturday , January 24 , Andrews and another business agent
met at Wright's home with Wright, Cameron , Gatlin , and Juarz where it was de-
cided to picket Respondent 's establishment starting the following Monday if the
four dischargees were not reemployed by then . A Yakima, Washington , newspaper
was then contacted and informed of the picketing decision.
On Sunday , January 25 , the aforesaid newspaper carried a news item, which
Logan admitted on the witness stand reading that day, to the effect that Local 760
would place a picket line around Respondent 's premises if the four men were not
immediately reinstated.
Sunday afternoon , January 25 , Logan telephoned Mobley and told him to report
for work the following day and then requested Mobley to "contact the rest of the
men and tell them the same." Mobley thereupon relayed Logan 's request to Wright
who, in turn , forwarded the request to Cameron and, indirectly , to Gatlin.
On January 26, all persons laid off by Logan on the previous Friday were
reinstated.
Several days after being reinstated , Logan , during a conversation wherein he
inquired of Mobley why he had not come to him if he had any complaint, asked
Mobley what he thought he "should have in order to be satisfied ." The next day
Mobley gave Logan a figure. Logan did not accept the figure . However, Logan
offered, and Mobley accepted , a weekly raise of $9 or $10.
Andrews testified without contradiction , and the Trial Examiner finds, that: On
Monday, January 26 , he and another Local 760 official called upon Logan ; during
the conversation which ensued "We notified [ Logan ] that the employees would go
back to work "; Logan asked, "How long [he] would have to keep these employees
at work" ; when Andrews and his associate inquired , "How long would he have kept
the employees at work if the union had never come into the picture," Logan replied
that he "hired Gerald Cameron to do some carbon work and was not planning on
keeping him at work there too long"; and the meeting ended when Logan stated
that henceforth his attorney , E. F. Velikanje , would handle the matter , and the
employees ' representatives should henceforth contact Velikanje
About 2 or 3 weeks after Wright , Gatlin, Cameron , and Mobley were reinstated,
Logan informed Wright , Gatlin , and Cameron that business was slack and that he
would have to lay them off . In the forepart of March, the three named persons
were laid off . Cameron was rehired after a month 's layoff, but neither Gatlin nor
Wright was.
8 The employees ' payday is on Saturday.
9 About 4 30 p in on January 23, Logan told Gatlin and Cameron , to quote from the
credible testimony of Gatlin , " Somebody got a hold of the union , that our checks were
ready for us if we wanted to come and get them " About the same time , Logan asked
employee David Mobley if he had signed a union card. When Mobley replied in the
affirmative , Logan stated, to quote from Mobley ' s credited testimony , "he'd tell me the
same as he had the other men , that my check was waiting in the office." When Mobley
stated , "I didn 't see why I should quit," Logan said, "You are not quitting, you are
fired ." Thereupon Mobley picked up his paycheck and left the plant. Logan also asked
Foreman Meyer and several other employees whether they were "satisfied ." When they
indicated that they were "satisfied " they were not instructed to pick up their paychecks.
RESERVATION FEED MILL 1323
About mid-May, Logan hired William Cramer. The latter credibly testified that
during his initial interview with Logan 10 the question of Cramer 's union affiliations
at his previous employment was discussed . Logan said , to quote Cramer,
he couldn't afford to have the union in there and he couldn 't run it the way he
wanted and he had terminated Albert Gatlin and [Anthony Wright] because
they brought the union in on him and Cameron was rehired because his family
had had a lot of tough luck and he needed the job and he was going to make
him a good steady man and he was a good man . he said if the union got
in he would just have to work part time and during the busy season.
The Monday following the aforesaid interview , Cramer was put to work after being
,cautioned by Logan, to again quote from Cramer 's credible testimony , "If anybody
asked me if I was working there, just to tell him I was learning the trade, I wasn't
getting paid for it , I was kind of learning the trade." 11
2. Concluding findings
This case presents the comparatively rare situation where the recitation of the
facts leading up to the March layoffs vividly reveals their discriminatory character.12
Immediately upon being informed that Local 760 represented the majority of the
employees , Logan interrogated the employees regarding their union affiliations and
sympathies and discharged four of them because of such affiliation and sympathy.
The very sequence of the events surrounding the March layoffs renders immediate
suspect Respondent 's proffered explanations in justification of his conduct. Thus,
in the face of the convincing evidence that the layoffs were plainly attributable to
Respondent 's animosity to having his establishment unionized and to the com-
plainants' union membership , Respondent urges that true reason for the layoffs was
that business was slack. However, Respondent did not attempt to substantiate his
position with records of orders placed with him, or with data as to his profit-loss
position . Regarding such neglect, the Third Circuit noted in similar circumstances
in N.L .R.B. v. Sam Wallick, et al., d/b/a Wallick and Schwalm Company , et al.,
198 F. 2d 477, 483:
This evidence was vital and it was clearly within respondents ' power to produce
it. The Board would have been warranted in drawing an inference that such
evidence , if adduced , would not have been favorable to respondents. See 2
Wigmore on Evidence § 285.
Assuming , arguendo , that Respondent 's economic situation in March was such
that it would justify certain reduction in working force, the Trial Examiner is not
persuaded that business reasons motivated the layoffs of Wright and Gatlin in
March. Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner finds that any
curtailment of business was but a pretext for these particular discriminatory layoffs
and not the moving cause, especially in view of the fact that Cameron had less
seniority than either Gatlin and Wright and that Cameron did not perform all the
jobs Gatlin and Wright normally performed . In addition , Cramer was hired after
a month's layoff to perform duties Gatlin and Wright normally performed from
time to time.
Respondent , at the hearing and in his brief , assigned certain specific reasons why
he did not rehire Wright and Gatlin . A careful analysis of the credible evidence,
as epitomized above, clearly discloses that his reasons for refusing to rehire Wright
10 Logan ' s version of what transpired during this interview varies somewhat with
Cramer ' s version After a very careful scrutiny of the entire record in the case, all of
which has been carefully read , and parts of which have been reread and rechecked several
times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the importance
which each has placed upon the credibility problems here involved , the Trial Examiner
finds Cramer ' s version of what was said and done during this interview to be substan-
tially in accord with the facts.
"The record clearly reveals , and the Trial Examiner finds , that Cramer was paid a
salary and has been performing duties which Gatlin and Wright performed when they
were not making deliveries
"Compare the oft-quoted observation of Chief Judge Parker in Hartsell Mills Com-
pany v. N L B B , 111 F. 2d 291 , 293 (C.A. 4) ' . .. direct evidence of a purpose to
violate the statute is rarely obtainable ." Accord : NLRB v. Bird Machine Company,
161 F. 2d 589 , 592 (C.A. 1)
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD o
and Gatlin are without substance or merit. For example , one of the reasons assigned
for not rehiring Wright was that Wright had a "near-miss [automobile-truck] acci-
dent [with] and `sounding off' to one of" Respondent's customers. However, Joseph
Kuhn, the customer involved, did not inform Logan of this incident until months
after Cameron had been rehired and the new employee, Cramer, had been put to
work. The other reasons given for not rehiring Gatlin and Wright are equally
preposterous.
Upon the record as a whole the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that Re-
spondent discharged Wright and Gatlin because of their membership and activities
in behalf of Local 760. By so doing, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act and since such conduct necessarily interfered with, restrained, and coerced
Wright and Gatlin in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7, Respondent
also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that he cease and desist therefrom and that he take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Wright and Gatlin by discharging them in March 1959, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of said discrimination by payment to each
a sum of money equal to that which they would have earned as wages from the date
of the discrimination against them to the date of the offer of reinstatement less their
net earnings during such period. Loss of pay shall be computed and paid in accord-
ance with the formula adopted by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent in the instant case are such
as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally. In
order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of
the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 524 and
Local 760, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Wilbur K. Logan, d/b/a Reservation Feed Mill, Wapato, Washington, during
all times material herein was engaged in and now is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Wright
and Gatlin, thereby discouraging membership in the Local 760, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interrogating and otherwise interfering with , restraining , and coercing his
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication. ]