S. D. Warren Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 288 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the IUE, or in any IUE local, or in
any other labor organization of our employees , by refusing to reinstate, upon
their unconditional request, any of our employees engaged in concerted activity
as unfair labor practice strikers.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,'restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from engaging in any
or all such activities , except to the extent that such rights may be ' affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon 'request, furnish the IUE with information relating to the per
employee costs of the improvements in our insurance and pension plans provided
for in the 1960-63 agreement relating thereto.
WE WILL offer the following empoyees at our Augusta, Georgia, plant- full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , ' without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges:
Robert Best Gerald E. Moody Thomas Ford
Denny G Boltin J. L. Cline Joe Howell
Franklin Harper Gene Cline Charles D. Kennedy,
Richard Inglett Gamey Browning James Knight
James Knight W. R. Cushman G. D. Smith
James Kyle Brooks B. Faircloth Jerry Smith
'
WE WILL make whole the foregoing employees , and also Lonnie M. Usry and
W. A. Chalker for any loss of pay suffered by each as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above ,-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fifth floor,
Squibb Building , 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. Plaza
1-5500 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
S. D. Warren Company and International Association of Ma-
chinists , AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO ; United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood
i of Firemen and. Oilers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4513. De-
cember 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed on March 9, 1964, by International Associ-
ation of Machinists, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of, Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; and International, Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Unions or the
150 NLRB No. 32.
S. D. WARREN COMPANY 289
joint representative), the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 1, issued a
complaint and notice of hearing on April 16, 1964, alleging that S. D.
Warren Company (hereinafter called Respondent), had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act. Copies of the charge, com-
plaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent.
The complaint alleges in' substance that since on or about' Sep-
tember 12, 1963, the Unions -have been the exclusive representative;
for collective-bargaining, purposes, of the employees in certain
departments of the engineering division of Respondent's Cumberland
Mill, Westbrook, Maine, plant; that 'on three occasions the Unions
requested Respondent to' bargain collectively and that from Novem-
ber 26, 1963, and at all' times` thereafter Respondent has refused to
bargain with the Unions as exclusive representative of all employees
in the described unit. Respondent's answer, as amended, in sub-
stance denies that the Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act; admits only that, it received
letters on the stationery of the International Brotherhood of Fire-
men and Oilers, signed by what purports to be the signature of John
J. McNamara, international vice president; and further admits that
it communicated with John J. McNamara.
'On May 27, 1964, a hearing opened before Trial' Examiner W.
Gerard Ryan and was on the same day adjourned indefinitely. On
July 4, 1964, the Trial Examiner closed the hearing. On July 8, 1964,
the Trial Examiner denied 'Respondent's motion to dismiss the com-
plaint and on the same date rejected Respondent's written offers of
proof which had been submitted after adjouriunent of the hearing.
On August '5, 1964, the parties (Unions, Respondent, and General
Counsel) filed with the Trial Examiner a motion and stipulation,
moving said Trial Examiner to transfer the matter to the Board for
adjudication. On August 6, 1964, 'the Trial Examiner granted the
motion to transfer the case to the Board.
The parties stipulated that certain documents should comprise the
entire record in the proceeding; waived' their right to file briefs with
the Trial Examiner, and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision;
and submitted the matter to the Board for findings of fact,' conclu-
sions, and Order. The Respondent requested an opportunity for
oral argument should the Board deem it necessary. On August 10,
1964, the Board approved the stipulation' and set the date for filing
of briefs. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act', as amended,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
three-member panel (Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Leedom).
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, including the
stipulation and the briefs, the Board makes the following : I
FINDING OF FACT
I. COMMERCE
The Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation with a plant and
place of business in the town of Westbrook, county of Cumberland,
State of Maine, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of paper and related products .2 In the course and conduct of its
business Respondent causes large quantities of pulp and chemicals
used by it in the manufacture of paper to be purchased and trans-
ported in interstate commerce from and through various States of
the United States and in the course and conduct of its business
annually ships products to points outside the State of Maine valued
in excess of $50,000. Respondent's gross volume of business exceeds
$500,000 annually.
The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is and has been
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits that each of the Unions is a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, in the underlying
representation proceeding, we have found that the Unions have been
and are the joint representative designated or selected by the majority
of employees in the unit as their joint representative for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act,
the joint representative has been and is the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment .3
' The request for oral argument is hereby denied as in our opinion the record and briefs
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
2 The complaint was amended at the hearing , on the motion of Respondent , to show
that Respondent 's principal office is maintained at 89 Broad Street, Boston , Common-
wealth of Massachusetts
3 Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint , in part on the ground that the General
Counsel failed to allege or prove the Unions together constitute a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act we disagree with Respondent's con-
tention. The complaint alludes to the Unions collectively as "the representative" and
"the exclusive representative ," phrases clearly reflecting the Unions ' status as joint repre-
sentative. For this reason and the reasons set forth supra, we find the Respondent's
motion to dismiss lacking in merit and affirm the Trial Examiner ' s denial of the motion.
Further, Respondent 's fear that the Unions are intent on bargaining separately and not as
a joint representative is unfounded. As the Unions have been certified jointly, the
Respondent may insist that they bargain jointly for all employees in the unit, Vanadium
Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1390.
S. D. WARREN COMPANY 291
Accordingly, we find that the Unions are the joint representative
of the employees in the unit and the joint representative is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.4
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
On November 27, 1962, a petition was filed by the Unions as Joint
Petitioners for a maintenance unit at Respondent's plant. Thereafter
a hearing was held and briefs filed, and on April 4, 1963, the Regional
Director for Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election.
The Respondent's request for review was granted May 1, 1963. On
August 23, 1963, the Board issued its Decision on Review 5 affirming
the Regional Director's action.
On September 12, 1963, an election was held among employees
in the appropriate unit, and thereafter the Respondent filed objec-
tions to the conduct of the election and the conduct affecting the
results of the election. The objections were duly investigated by
the Regional Director who then issued on October 8, 1963, a Sup-
plemental Decision, Revised Tally of Ballots, and Certification of
Representative. Respondent's request for review by the Board
was denied by the Board on December 5, 1963.
On December 18, 1963, new counsel for Respondent filed with
the Regional Director a motion for reconsideration and memorandum
in support of its motion, which was denied January 3, 1964, with
further elucidation on January 10, 1964. Respondent filed with the
Board on January 14, 1964, a request for review of the Regional
Director's denial. This request for review was treated as a motion
for reconsideration of the Board's Decision on Review of August 23,
1963, and by direction of the Board was denied on February 3,
1964, as untimely and as raising no material issue of fact or law.
Respondent on February 10, 1964, filed with the Board exceptions,
motion for reconsideration, and request for clarification. On April 8,
1964, the Board issued a ruling with respect to Respondent's
exceptions, motion for reconsideration, and request for clarification
in which it found no merit in Respondent's contentions and that no
issues were raised warranting relief.
On April 15, 1964, Respondent filed exceptions to the- ruling of
April 8, 1964, and these were denied on April 20, 1964, at the direc-
tion of the Board as lacking in merit.
While this comprehensive review and treatment of the representa-
tion petition was in process, the Unions requested on at ' least three
occasions, after the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision of
4 E.g., Florida Tile Industries, Inc., 130 NLRB 897, and cases cited therein. -
5 144 NLRB 204.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October 8, 1963, that the Respondent bargain with them. Thus on
November 22, 1963, John J. McNamara, international vice president
of the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, wrote
on behalf of the Unions requesting a meeting on December 6, 1963,
to discuss a contract. Respondent replied on ' November 26, 1963,
that the request was premature because of the appeal then pending
before the Board. A similar request from the Unions on Decem-
ber 31,'1963, sent after'the Board had on December 5, 1963, denied
Respondent's request for review, ' received a similar answer on the
ground Respondent was requesting the "Regional Director to recon-'
Sider his decision. Finally' on February ' 5, 1964, the Unions once
again requested Respondent to meet with them for the purpose of
collective bargaining. Respondent through its counsel answered
on February 8, 1964, stating that it was 'filing further 'pleadings
with the Board, making the Unions' request premature, and going on
to state that Respondent considered the certification invalid and
rejecting the Unions' requests to bargain "unless and until ordered
to do so by a court of competent, jurisdiction...."
B. Discussion
We find, based on the record, that Respondent has refused to
bargain with the representative of its employees. Moreover, by its
letter of February 8, 1964, Respondent has indicated that it will not
bargain while the present certification is in effect. Thus, any
further request to bargain by the Unions would be futile.
'Respondent maintains , however, that it is not obligated to bargain.
Its principal arguments center on its contentions that the certification
was fatally deficient and that, even if the certification is otherwise
valid, the Board's unit determination must be set aside as arrived at
in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Related to these arguments
is Respondent's assertion that the Trial Examiner erred in rejecting
Respondent's offers of proof.
We find no merit in Respondent's position, for it is well established
that absent newly discovered evidence the issues raised and deter-
mined in the prior representation proceeding may not be relitigated
in the complaint proceeding,6 and in our view Respondent has pre-
sented no new or material facts which would warrant our reopening
or setting aside the earlier representation proceeding.
1. Respondent's offers of proof,
The Respondent's offers of proof all relate to matters - which
Respondent had ample opportunity to present'to, or were considered
by, the Board in its decision in the representation proceeding, the'
0 Pittsburgh Plate ala88 Company v . N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146.
S. D. WARREN COMPANY 293
Regional Director's Decision, and the 'various subsequent motions
and requests for review which we have listed above.
Respondent's first offer of proof goes to the Board's inclusion of
employees of the chemical, smelting, and recovery unit in the appro-
priate unit. The offer is intended to correct what it alleges is an
omission in the record as reflected in our Decision on Review. How-
ever, as indicated by our Decision on Review we did not require addi-
tional evidence for our determination. Furthermore, Respondent
did not seek until now, despite numerous opportunities provided' in
its request for review and its subsequent motions and requests in
the representation proceeding, to challenge this aspect of the Board's
determination even though the evidence it now offers was at all times
available. The Trial Examiner correctly rejected this offer of proof.
Respondent's second offer' of proof is intended to show that the
parties agreed, to include in the ' unit certain employees, assigned
to other divisions of the plant, whom we excluded. , Respondent first
made this assertion in its motion for reconsideration of December 18,
1963. Having been subsequently reviewed and rejected by the Regional
Director, and by the Board, we 'find the offer of proof to be an
effort to relitigate matters fully considered and disposed of in the
representation proceeding. Therefore, the offer was properly rejected
by the Trial Examiner. '
The last offer of proof is directed to alleged misrepresentation's by
the Unions. This claim served as a basis for Respondent's objec-
tion, to,conduct of election and was fully considered in the Regional
Director's 'Supplemental Decision, Revised Tally of Ballots,' and
Certification of Representative. Moreover, Respondent's•-'request
for review, denied by the Board on December 5, 1963, was based in
part on the same matter. For the reasons previously stated, the
Trial Examiner did not err in rejecting this offer of proof.
2. ' Respondent's motion to dismiss'
Respondent moves that the complaint be dismissed on'the'grounds'
that the certification is defective because of the absence from the
record in this proceeding of two exhibits from the representation
proceeding.? We cannot accept Respondent's argument as a valid
ground for its refusal to bargain with the joint representative. The
certification resulting from the Board-conducted election was valid
when issued and Respondent's assertion in no way impeaches its cur-
rent validity. Moreover, while the two exhibits s' are not material to
the issue before us in this unfair 'labor practice proceeding, we
7 See section II, above , for our disposition of the other ground on which' Respondent
based its motion to dismiss , namely, the status of the Unions as the joint representative.
8The exhibits are (1 ) a schematic fl ow diagram of Respondent 's process and (2) a
layout of the mill buildings.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parenthetically note that the parties, including Respondent, have
by stipulation dated June 19, 1964, submitted to the Board replicas of
the missing exhibits. Thus, contrary to Respondent's assertion,
the record, which we reviewed in its entirety in the representation
proceeding, is not and we find never was defective in any material
sense.
C. The refusal to bargain
Upon our review of the entire record in this case we conclude
that the Unions were selected on or about September 12, 1963, by
.a majority of employees in the appropriate unit in Respondent's
Cumberland Mill, Westbrook, Maine, plant,9 as their joint repre-
sentative for the purpose of collective bargaining; that at all times
since September 12, 1963, the joint representative has been the
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining of a majority
of the employees in the unit and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act, has been and is now the exclusive representative of all employees
in the unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment; that the joint representative has requested Respondent
to bargain collectively with it; and that Respondent did refuse, and
continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the joint representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit. We find that by
refusing to bargain collectively with the certified representative of
its employees, the Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The acts of the Respondent described in section III, above, occur-
ring in connection with the operations 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 dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
U The unit is:
All employees in the following departments of the engineering division of the Employ-
er's [Respondent 's] Cumberland Mill , Westbrook, Maine, plant: instrumentation and stem
distribution ; power boilers and new boiler house ; bark burner boiler ; chemical, smelting,
and recovery unit ; mechanical power maintenance ; steam engineers ; oilers ; electrical
stations ; paint shop ; belt shop ; machine shop ; electrical shop ; grinder room ; rigger shop ;
carpenter shop ; piping shop ; mason shop ; tin shop ; welding shop ; laborers ; and truck-
men ; and employees located at the Dundee , Eel Weir, and Saccarappa hydroelectric sta-
tions, janitorial and custodial employees of the engineering division , and leadmen in the
respective departments and locations listed above, exclusive of all other employees ; em-
ployees of the engineering division permanently assigned to other divisions of the mill,
research division employees , dispatcher , assistant dispatchers, telephone operators, office
clerical and plant clerical employees , technical employees , professional employees , foremen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
S. D. WARREN COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
295
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist
therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The joint representative, International Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO ; and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. S. D. Warren Company is an Employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By refusing, and by continuing to refuse, to bargain col-
lectively with the Unions as joint representative of its employees
in the unit 10 the Respondent did engage in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of
the Act.
4. By refusing, and by continuing to refuse, to bargain collectively
with the Unions as joint representative of its employees in the
unit described above, Respondent did interfere with, restrain, and
coerce, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby did engage 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
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (1) and (5)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
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, S. D.
Warren Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith concerning
wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, with International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO;
10 Footnote 9, supra.
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, AFL-CIO; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO, the joint
representative, as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the following appropriate unit :
All employees in the following departments of the engineering
division of the Employer's [Respondent's] Cumberland Mill, West-
brook, Maine plant: instrumentation and steam distribution; power
boilers and new boiler house; bark burner boiler; chemical, smelting,
and recovery unit; mechanical power maintenance; steam engineers;
oilers ; electrical stations; paint shop ; belt shop ; machine shop ;
electrical shop; grinder room; rigger shop; carpenter shop; piping
shop; mason shop; tin shop; welding shop; laborers; and truck-
men; and employees located at the Dundee, Eel Weir, and Sac-
carappa hydroelectric stations, janitorial and custodial employees of
the engineering division, and leadmen in the respective departments
and locations listed above, exclusive of all other employees; employees
of the engineering division permanently assigned to other divisions
of the mill, research division employees, dispatcher, assistant dis-
patchers, telephone operators, office clerical and plant clerical
employees, technical employees, professional employees, foremen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of the joint representative to
negotiate for or represent the employees in the said appropriate
unit as the exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the joint representa-
tive of all employees in the foregoing appropriate unit, and embody
in a signed agreement any understanding reached with respect to
the employees in said unit.
(b) Post at its Cumberland Mill, Westbrook, Maine, plant copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 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 any other material.
u 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 "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order".
S. D. WARREN COMPANY 297
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
In my dissent in the representation case, S. D. Warren Company,
144 NLRB 204, which is the predicate for the majority decision in
this case, I indicated my disagreement with the Board's unit find-
ing. As I adhere to the position set forth in the dissent, I would
not find that the Respondent violated the Act by refusing to bargain
in what I consider to be an inappropriate unit.
APPENDIX
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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO; International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; and International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO, the joint rep-
resentative, as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the joint representative,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a
signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All employees in the following departments of the engi-
neering division'of our Cumberland Mill, Westbrook, Maine,
plant: instrumentation and steam distribution; power boilers
and new boiler house; bark burner boiler; chemical, smelt-
ing, and recovery unit; mechanical power maintenance;
steam engineers; oilers; electrical stations; paint shop; belt
shop; machine shop; electrical shop; grinder room; rigger
.shop; carpenter shop; piping shop, mason shop; tin shop;
welding shop; laborers; and truckmen; and employees
located at the Dundee, Eel Weir, and Saccarappa hydro-
electric stations, janitorial and custodial employees of the
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engineering division, and leadmen in the respective depart-
ments and locations listed above, exclusive of all other em-
ployees; employees of the engineering division permanently
assigned to other divisions of the mill, research division
employees, dispatcher, assistant dispatchers, telephone op-
erators, office clerical and plant clerical employees, technical
employees, professional employees, foremen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the joint represent-
ative to negotiate for or represent as exclusive bargaining agent
the employees in the bargaining unit described above.
S. D. WARREN COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By--------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Tower Iron Works , Inc. and Shopmen 's Local Union No. 523 of
the International Association of Bridge , Structural & Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and Independent Metal Fabri-
cators Union , Party to the Contract . Case No. 1-CA-4485-2.
December 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, Respondent and the Party to the Contract each filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and Respondent filed a supporting
brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
150 NLRB No. 24.