Rubber Stamps, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of RUBBER STAMPS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL METAL
ENGRAVERS UNION, UNAFFILIATED
Case No. 2-C-5605.-Decided June 2, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 16, 1945, the Trial Examiner 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 annexed hereto. None of the
parties has filed Exceptions to the Intermediate Report, or briefs, or
requested a hearing before the Board for the purpose of oral argument.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hear-
ings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the
entire record in the case; as noted above, no exceptions have been filed.
Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
I
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Rubber Stamps, Inc., New York City,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Metal Engravers Union,
unaffiliated, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other
1 The Trial Examiner states that Garsson was hired as a compositor to July 15. However, the record
establishes , and we find , that Garsson was hired in this capacify on July 11. This discrepancy does
not effect the correctness of the Trial Examiner 's other findings or conclusions , which we adopt herein.
62 N. L. R. B., No. 4.
12
RUBBER STAMPS, INC. 13
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Metal Engravers Union,
unaffiliated, or any other labor organization, 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,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to George Garsson immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole George Garsson for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to his hire and
tenure of employment by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his dis-
charge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period ;
(c) Post at its plant at New York City, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director of the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by other material ; ,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps the respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
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,
we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist International Metal Engravers
Union, unaffiliated, or any other labor-organization , to bargain collec-
14, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as
a result of the discrimination.
George Garsson.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization: We will not discriminate in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any such labor organization.
RUBBER STAMPS, INC., Employer.
(Representative)
Dated
NOTE-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
f the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance
pith the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed , forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jack Davis, for the Board.
Mr. Alfred A. Levey, of New York, N. Y., for the respondent
Mr. Conrad Woelfel, of New York, N. Y., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Metal Engravers Union, unaffiliated,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director of the Second Region (New York, N. Y.), issued its coin-
plaint dated November 17, 1944, against Rubber Stamps, Inc., herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent 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 coiiiplaint and the charge , accompanied by notice of
hearing , were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that
(1) the respondent discharged George Garsson on or about July 17, 1944, and has
since that date failed and refused to reinstate said Garsson because he joined or
assisted the Union ; and (2 ) the respondent , from on or about July 17, 1944, to the
(late of the issuance of this complaint, vilified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval
of the Union, interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations , urged,
persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from joining or assisting the Union,
RUBBER STAMPS, INC. 15
and-threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined or
assisted the Union. The respondent filed no answer to the aforesaid complaint.
'Pursuant to the aforesaid notice a hearing was held in New York City on Decem-
ber 12 before William J. Isaacson, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board represented by counsel, the Union by a
representative , and the respondent by its president, participated in the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of the case counsel
for the Board moved to conform the complaint with respect to formal matters to
the evidence adduced. There was no objection and the motion was granted. Although
all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally on the record before the under-
signed, none of the parties availed themselves of this opportunity. Nor did the parties
avail themselves of the opportunity to file briefs with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the NN itness, the under-
signed makes the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT)
Rubber Stamps, Inc., a New York corporation, has its principal office and place
of business in New York City, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of rubber stamps. During the period beginning in December 1943 to the date
of the-hearing, the respondent used in its above operations raw materials consisting
of wood,'rubber, and bakelite. The bakelite, having a value of approximately $500, was
shipped to the respondent's plant from points outside the State of New York. During
the same period 98 percent of the respondent's finished products, having a value
of about $50,000, was manufactured under a contract with the Navy and delivered
to the United States Naval Supply Depot in Brooklyn, New York. The Navy
thereupon ships these goods to points throughout the United States and delivers them
to Navy vessels sailing to points throughout the world. The respondent admits that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Metal Engravers Union, unaffiliated, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES"
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion prior to and accompanying George Garsson's
discharge; George Garsson's discharge
On Friday, July 14, 1944, employee George Garsson, a union member, asked one
1 These findings of fact are based upon stipulations in the record between counsel fm the Board
and the respondent 's president.
9 The testimony of the Board's witnesses in support of the allegations in the complaint is confined
solely to statements and conduct attributed to President Levey. Their testimony is in large measure
corroborative of one another . The respondent made no real attempt to rebut their testimony . President
Alfred Levey called no witnesses other than himself to testify at the bearing in the instant case
Moreover, Levey. upon being sworn as a witness , merely stated, "All the remarks that have been
passed that I said about the Union are false." He qualified this statement , declaring "I have said
things but it has not been against the Union . It has been probably members of the union ." Further-
more, in several instances he corroborated testimony of Board witnesses , and, on several occasion,
during the hearing, be expressed his hostility to the Union . Upon this state of the record the under.
signed accepts the credible testimony of the Board 's witnesses as a truthful account of what occurred
and finds that President Levey made the statements and engaged in the conduct hereinafter set forth
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his fellow employees, Benjamin Abroinowitz, before work, to join the Union.
Abromowitz agreed to join the Union and that night he went to the union hall with
Garsson and became a union, member. The next day Abromowitz told Garsson that he
deemed it his duty as an employee of the respondent to advise President Levey that
they were union members. Garsson suggested that he "let it go till Monday." Abromo-
witz acceded to his suggestion. On Monday, July 17, Abromowitz again informed
Garsson that he would inform Levey of their membership. Thereupon, Abromowitz
called Levey aside and told him that he, Abromowitz, was a union man and that he
thought "it was only fair that [Levey] should know about that." Levey. replied, "Ben,
you are making a big mistake. The Union is a bunch of racketeers and gangsters
and they only want your dues every month." He continued, "I ought to know because
I was one of the organizers of that Union." He thereupon pointed out that "this was
not much of a union," that their organizational efforts had been largely ineffectual.
Abromowitz replied that he nevertheless desired to be a union member. He concluded
the discussion by informing Levey that Levey would receive a registered letter from
the Union requesting recognition. Levey thereupon approached Garsson and said, "so
you are a union man." Garsson replied that he was. Levey said, "I would advise you
to quit [the respondent's employ]." Garsson inquired, "are my services satisfactory?"
Levey, replying affirmatively, added that although eventually he would be compelled
"to sign up with the Union" he would "give [them] a fight."3
Later in the day Levey refused to accept the registered letter sent to him by the
Union and so informed Garsson and Abromowitz. Garsson replied that he considered
Levey's action to be "foolish". About-2:30 o'clock that same afternoon the Union's
representative, Conrad Woelfel, learning of the respondent's rejection of the letter,
attempted to deliver it personally. Woelfer first inquired of Levey why he had refused
to accept-it. Levey replied that "he would have nothing to do with the union and he
didn't give a damn what was in the letter". Woelfel, urging that Levey at least read
it, handed him the letter. Levey, refusing to read the letter, threw it into the corridor.
Woelfel asserted that the Union represented the employees and that the letter , setting
forth this claim, contained a draft of an agreement for negotiations. Levey advised
Woelfel that the representation of his employees was "none of [Woelfel' s] business"
and that Woelfel should "get the hell" out of the shop. He threatened either to call a
policeman to remove Woelfel, or to complain to the Navy that Woelfel was interfering
with production under the Navy contract. Finally, Levey, in the presence of the
employees, seized Woelfel and physically ejected him from the plant . Levey thereupon
shouted to the employees. "There is your union, a bunch of gangsters trying to come
in here and run my shop for me." Levey continued, "We will see if we want a union
around this place." He then inquired of the female employees whether they desired a
unon.' They replied in the negative. He turned to Abromowitz and declared, "you are
outvoted."
Levey next informed Garsson, "You are through after 5 o'clock [the end of the
working day]. I won't have any union around here." About a half hour later, as
Abromowitz was instructing Garsson in the method of producing a certain kind of
type, Levey informed Garsson, "You are now through." He warned Garsson, "If you
go looking for a job in this business, I am going to blackball you."
3 Abromowitz overheard several of Levey's conversations with Garsson that day. He 'was admittedly
unable, however, to recall precisely what he overheard during each particular conversation. Accord-
ingly, to the extent that Abromowitz's version of these various conversations differs from that of
Garsson the undersigned accepts Garsson's version thereof.
4 At the time herein above set forth the respondent had in its employ 6 employees, 4 females and 2
males, Garsson and Abromowitz Three of the four female employees were schoolgirls who worked
only during the summer.
RUBBER STAMPS, INC. 17
Levey contended at the hearing that the respondent's operations required the services
of an experienced moulder and that Garsson was discharged because he could not
qualify as such. This contention is \\holly without merit It is conclusively established
by the above statement of facts that the sole reason for Garsson's discharge was his
union membership and activities.` In any event Garsson, as the credible testimony of
Garsson and Abromowitz establishes, was hired not as a moulder, but as a compositor
on July 15, but 6 days before his discharge. He was to become familiar with the mould-
ing operation only at such times as there was no composing work. Abromowitz, who
was an experienced moulder, testified that it was impossible to learn the respondent's
moulding operation within the short time Gat-sson was employed in the respondent's
plant. He further testified that he, himself, had needed approximately a month in order
to learn the entire moulding operation.'
Upon the foregoing facts and the entire reecord the undersigned finds that Garsson
was discharged because of his membership in the Union and activities on its behalf,
the respondent thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed them under the Act The undersigned further finds
that the respondent's anti-union statements and conduct hereinabove set forth viewed
in their totality against a background of employer hostility to the Union and its
adherents, including the discriminatory discharge of Garsson, constituted independent
violations of the rights guaranteed the employees in Section 7 of the Act'
B. Acts of interference, restraint, and coercion subsequent to Garsson's discharge
Garsson's discharge did not signalize the cessation of the respondent's anti-union
activities. President Levey continued his campaign to oust the Union from the plant.
About a week after Garsson's discharge President Levey hired one Jack Steinowitz
under the following circumstances. Steinowitz who was unemployed at the time, was
informed by Woelfel that there was a job available at the respondent's plant. He there-
upon telephoned Levey and inquired concerning the job. He assured Levey that he
had had sufficient experience, having worked in several rubber stamp shops including
the Samuel H. Moss Co. Levey replied, "I would be very interested in hiring a man
of your caliber, but since you worked at Samuel H. Moss andthat is a union shop, I
nnist know are you still a member of the Union?" Steinowitz replied that he no longer
was a union member. Levey then inquired whether he would be "willing to sign an
affidavit to that effect " Upon Steinowitz's affirmative reply, Levey asked him to come
to the plant for an interview. During the interview Levey again expressed a doubt
as to whether Steinowitz was, as he said, no longer a union member. Steinowitz reiter-
ated that he was not then a union member and that he had previously been a union
member only because it was required under a closed-shop contract. Thereupon Levey
directed Abromowitz to take Steinowitz upon a tour of the plant At the conclusion
of the interview, when the question of union membership was again raised by Levey,
Steinowitz once more offered to make an affidavit. Levey, apparently convinced by
Steinowitz's protestations, replied that it would he unnecessary. Subsequently, upon
hiring one Jack Weinrib as a compositor, Levey inquired of him whether he was a
5 Levey admitted at the hearing that he had had an "argument" with Garsson about the Union and
that he, Levey, was "very much hurt" and "very sore
9 The respondent raises no question concerning the manner in which Garsson performed his duties
as a compositor . Levey expressly admitted that he had found no fault with Garsson 's work as a
compositor . Abromowitz testified that insofar as Garsson ' s work as a compositor was concerned, "He
did his duties , did what he was told, and did them competently ." Garsson testified that not only had he
received no complaints concerning his work but that on Saturday, 2 days before his discharge, Levey
informed him, "I think you will get along very nicely here "
7 The undersigned finds further evidence of independent violations of the rights guaranteed the
employees in Section 7 of the Act in the respondent's conduct and statements subsequent to Garsson's
discharge , as hereinafter set out.
18 UECrSlONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union member. Levey, after first testifying that Weinrib replied in the affirmative,
admitted that "He might have said no."
On October 24, 1944, the Union filed a petition with the Board's Regional Offices,
alleging that a question concerning representation among the respondent's employees
had arisen. (Tatter of Rubber Stamps, Inc., Case No. 2-R-5142.) On November 21
the respondent and the Union entered into an agreement providing for the Board's
Regional Office in New York City to conduct an election among the respondent's
employees On November 29 an election was held, the results of which were as follows
3 voting for the Union, 2 against e
Shortly before the aforesaid election Levey addressed the employees as follows'
"You fellows are going to have your own union shop around here all right, but it is
going to be the best damn union shop in the city. You will not have any more coffee
in the morning on my time. If you are going to come five minutes late, you are going
to be docked for it. No making up for it any more. I am going to make it so tough
'around here that even you [pointing to Abromowitz] will consider it a pleasure to leave."
He added, "Christmastime the girls in there [the office] are going to get bonuses, but
not you fellows here "9 On the day of the election Levey, upon arriving at the shop
shouted to Abromowitz in the presence of the employees, "Stop electioneering around
here. The girls don't want to he bothered with your electioneering." Abromowitz pro-
tested that lie had not been electioneering in the plant. Steinowitz interjected that
Abromowitz was entirely within his rights in electioneering off of the respondent's
premises on his own time. Levey replied, "I won't stand for a union in here anyway."
Steinowitz pointed out that by making the foregoing statement Levey was electioneer-
ing in violation of the law. Levey answered, "I don't care if I am violating the law,
f don't care if I am electioneering."
The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the foregoing statements and conduct,
including questioning applicants for hire as to their union affiliation and threatening
economic reprisals to its employees if they designated the Union as their collective
bargaining representative, further -interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in- Section 7 of the Act i°
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations described in Section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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
8 The complaint in the instant case contains , no allegation that the respondent refused to bargain
collectively in violation in Section 8 (5) of the Act
"Levey referred to the bonus which he customarily gave the employees before Christmas The
previous year he had given each employee a war bond having a face value in the amount of $25.00
S° Levey, on several occasions during the hearing, admitted his hostility to the Union. He declared,
"this whole thing," referring to the Union's organizational campaign and the hearing in the instant
case, "has driven toe to the point and the factory is in such a condition that I don't see how we can
honestly tell the Navy that we can finish the rest of the contract . . . I think the contract should be
taken away from us .. ." In explanation of the foregoing statement he declared, "I have had
employees there that I had a lot of confidence in, and I feel I could not continue even if 1 signed the
union shop I could not be amicable , and I could'not work with the men . I don't see how I can," He
Added, "The feeling is not there that was there before . . . I feel that everything that was done in
joining the Union was done in such a manner that it could have been done and I could have been
taken into confidence, and they would have j oined the Union anyway, but at least I felt I should have
known about it and not be told by somebody else "
RUBB ER STAMPS, INC.
v THE REMEDY
19
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Since it has also been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of George Garsson, it will be recommended that the
respondent offer him full and immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges.
It Will be further recommended that the respondent make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of such discrimination by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as Wages from the
(late of the discharge to the date of respondent ' s offer of reinstatement , less his net
earningsli dring such period. -
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International v1etal Engravers Union, an unaffiliated organization, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George
Garsson, and thereby discouraging membership in International Metal Engravers
Union, unaffiliated, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees vi the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor -practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Ruber Stamps, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from •
(a) Discouraging membership in International Metal Engravers Union, unaffiliated,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging
any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist International Metal Engravers Union, unaffiliated, or any other labor organi-
zation, 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 as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act i
n By "net ear mngs" is meant earnings less expenses , such as foi ti anspui tattoo, loom, and 1-aid
incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the
respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent
necessity of his seeking emplotinient elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R It
440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-
ielief projects shall be considered as earnings See Re¢ubli, Steel Coi pm at, ,, i V L 12 B , 311
U S. 7
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act
(a) Offer George Garsson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges ;
(b) Make whole George Garsson for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the respondent's dscrinunation in regard to his hire and tenure of employ-
ment, by payment to him of a suns of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings' during sucli period ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant in New York City, and
maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, notices to its employees stating* (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a)
and (b) of these recommendations ; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs-2 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; and (3) that
the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of International
Metal Engravers Union, unaffiliated, and that the respondent will not discriminate
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of that or any
other labor organization.
(d) Notify the Regionl Director for the Second Region in writing within ten (10)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless oil or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writ:ug that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26, 1943,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the
entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
lI of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington, 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 proceed-
ing (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon together with
the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing
of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, 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. As further provided in Section 33, 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 the order transferring the
case to the Board.
Dated January 16, 1945.
WILLIAM J ISAACSON
Trial Examiner
12 See footnote 11, supra