Schenley Distilleries, Inc., Local 110

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union , United Plant Guard Workers of
America , and International Union , United Plant
Guard Workers of America , Local No. 110
(Schenley Distilleries, Inc.) and James T. Bor-
ders. Case 9-CB-5982
25 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND
BABSON
On 13 June 1985 , Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the Respondent filed an answer-
ing brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative
law judge is adopted and the complaint is dis-
missed.
I The. General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir
1951 ) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings
The judge inadvertently stated, in-sec II, par 10 of his decision, that
Joseph Lucas was Local 110 president from 1956-1957, rather than from
1956-1977
James A. Mills, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Barbara Welch Skaggs, Esq. (Gregory, Van Lopik, Moore
& Jeakle), of Detroit, Michigan, for the Respondent.
James T. Borders, on his own behalf.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard at Louisville, Kentucky, on 26 and
27 November 1984, based on an original charge filed by
James T. Borders, an individual, on 4 September 1984.1
The complaint, issued 19 October, alleges that the Inter-
national Union, United Plant Guard Workers of Amer-
ica, and International Union, United Plant Guard Work-
ers of America, Local No. 110, the Respondents, violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in that since about 23
August, and continuing to date, the Respondents have
i All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise specified
refused to process to arbitration a grievance, concerning
work scheduling filed by James T. - Borders, under' the
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement then in
effect between .the Respondents and Schenley Distill-
eries, Inc.
The Respondents' answer admits having refused to
process Borders' grievance, but denies having committed
any unfair labor practices. On the entire record, in the
case, including my consideration of the briefs and obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following
' FINDINGS OF FACT ' - ,
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
Based on the allegations of paragraph 2 of the com-
plaint and the admissions contained in the Respondents'
answer, I find that Schenley Distilleries,. Inc., the Em-
ployer,. is an employer engaged in commerce within the •
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Based on the allegations, of paragraph 3 of the com-
plaint, admitted by the Respondents' answer, I find that
the Respondents. are, jointly and severally, a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As of 1 August, Respondent Local 110 represented ap-
proximately 12 collective-bargaining units of-- Schenley
employees, including the guards at the Bernheim Distill-.
ery. The term of the most recent collective-bargaining
unit between the Company and Local 110 extended from
16 September 1981, until 15 September 1984. This agree-
ment governed the wages, hours, and working conditions
of "all plant protection personnel, . .. but excluding,
chief, assistant chief and sergeants , office and clerical
employees, professional employees and supervisors, as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed, and all other employees." Among its various-provi-
sions, this agreement contained a three-step • grievance
procedure (art. IX) culminating in final and binding arbi-
tration (art. X). The labor agreement also included as ar-
ticle XVII a provision entitled "By-Pass on Recall,"
which under certain specified conditions permitted a
senior guard to pass up a recall to work in favor' of a less
senior guard without losing his permanent position on
the seniority roster. It is undisputed that the most
common exercise of this provision occurs when a senior
guard is either sick or on vacation: However, subsection
(c) of article XVII states: "It is understood that this
privilege is only for the benefit of guards who have se-
cured other employment while on lay-off from the Bern-
heim Plant Protection Department."
Since 1978 Bernheim has maintained eight regular
guard shifts, which positions are subject to bid by senior-
ity. As of March, there were 12 guards on the seniority -
list, of which, normally, - only the 8 most senior men
would work. As of 1 March,, the ninth man (or first
junior man) was Archie Sadler Jr. James Borders has
been 10th man since he first became employed and
joined the Union in July 1982. On 22 June, Borders pre-
pared and filed a grievance which asserted, in substance,
that the Company had violated article XVII by permit-
276 NLRB No. 49
PLANT GUARDS (SCHENLEY DISTILLERIES)
ting Archie Sadler Jr. to return to work on 25 June
through an improper utilization of the bypass provisions
of the contract. This action denied work to Borders. As
a remedy, the grievance sought not only backpay for
Borders, but also Sadler's discharge. Borders was assisted
in the drafting- and processing of his grievance by
Donald K. Lankford, a fellow guard and Local 110 dissi-
dent. The record shows that the required first step dis-
cussion with Borders' supervisor, Plant Guard Supervi-
sor James Burke, took place on 22 June, but the dis-
agreement was not resolved. Thereafter the grievance
was' reduced to writing and the Company, through
Burke, filed a written answer which states, in relevant
part, "After working the week of May 7 [sic], A. Sadler,
Jr. did by-pass work the following week when work was
available. This is in violation and will not be permitted in
the future. However, since there was no loss of compen-
sation to the grievant and in fact the grievant did receive
additional work because of this action, no backpay is
forthcoming." Borders' grievance was not resolved at
step 1 or step 2. The matter proceeded to step 3 and, in
accordance with article IX, subsection (a), was referred
to the attention of Plant Manager R. L. Jefferson and,
Local 110 President George Squier.
'In the meantime, other events were afoot. Donald
Lankford had become actively 'engaged in an effort by
the International Guards' Union of America to replace
Local 110 as the representative of the Bernheim guards.
Lankford signed a union card on 22 June, which, oddly
enough, is the same day on which he assisted James Bor-
ders in filing his grievance.2 Lankford also distributed
cards and obtained card signatures from certain of the
other guards; including Borders who signed on 26, July.
The third-step meeting on Borders' grievance was held
in the plant conference room on 20 July. Those in at-
tendance were Plant Manager Jefferson, George Squier,
and James Borders,' assisted by Donald Lankford and
Fred Pearson (the acting union steward who performed
the act of filing the grievance), and two interested spec-
tators, Archie Sadler Sr. and Archie Sadler Jr. Jefferson
withdrew Supervisor Burke's answer which had admit-
ted a -violation of the contract. He characterized the
,grievance as ridiculous and denied it entirely. Borders,
who utilized Lankford as his representative rather than
Squier, argued that Sadler Jr. had been given preferential
treatment contrary to the provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement and to Borders ' detriment . Squier
had little to say, which he attributes to not having had
"the opportunity to meet with the grievant and, discuss
it." Borders,' Lankford, and Squier agree that at some
point during the meeting there was a discussion in which,
Squier objected to the requested remedy 'because it
sought Sadler, Jr.'s discharge. Borders and Lankford
then stated that they desired to amend that portion,of the
grievance to delete the request that Sadler Junior be dis-
charged, and substitute instead a. seniority adjustment be-
tween Sadler Junior and Borders. Squier stated that such
2 Although certain aspects of this case strongly suggest that the Bor-
ders' grievance may have been simply_an organizational tactic of Lank-
ford and the dissidents designed to further their efforts to replace Local
110, I make no findings in this area , since - it is unnecessary to a resolution
of the issues before me
517
an amendment must be in writing. Borders never com-
plied with this requirement. They meeting ended with Jef-
ferson agreeing to file a written answer on behalf of the
Company, setting forth the Company's reasons for its
denial. ,
`Jefferson's 'answer, dated 20 July, in,evidence as Geii-
eral Counsel's Exhibit 5, provides 'a detailed explanation
concerning why, in the Company's view, the contract
was not violated when Sadler Junior was permitted to
-work. Having received a copy of this document, Borders
prepared a written reply with the assistance of Florence
Lay. Lay and Borders delivered the document to Squier
on 28 July at Bluegrass Couperage; Squier's employer. A
conversation ensued in which Lay attempted to explain
why Borders felt that Archie Sadler Jr., with the assist-
ance, of his-father, was misusing, the bidding and bypass
procedure at Borders' expense. Lay testified that Squier
stated he knew that Borders felt Squier was against him.
Lay responded that Borders had no reason to believe
otherwise since Squier had never said. a word on his
behalf at. the grievance meeting. Squier demurred that
the meeting was very unorganized with'a lot of arguing,
and consequently whatever efforts he-could have made
would not have been 'effective. Lay retorted, "Well,
George, that's what you're there for." Toward the end
of the conversation, Squier turned to Borders; and said,
"Jim, you know, you go ,ahead with this and you're
going to mess up a good thing." Borders answered that
he could not mess up - a"good thing since he was not
working. Then Borders 'and Lay demanded to know
what Squier was going to do about the grievance, and
Squier answered, "Well,-I'll just send the whole package
to the International. [The next step.] I don't have any-
thing to do' with that." However, Squier said that before
he forwarded the grievance he wanted to meet alone
with Borders to review the written response to Jeffer-
son's answer. Squier stated that he would call Borders
the following day to set up an appointment, and empha-
sized that Borders was to come alone At this point the
discussion at Bluegrass Couperage ended. Borders' testi-
mony corroborates Lay's account of the meeting, which
Squier does not dispute: Squier agrees he said Borders
was "messing up a good thing," but insists he was refer-
ring to the advantages _ contained in the contractual
bypass. procedure, which he.thought could result in Bor
ders' "cutting his own throat" if Borders' interpretation
prevailed Squier also acknowledged stating that he
wanted to meet with .Borders alone before sending the
grievance to the Interriational.3
On 29. July Squier called Borders and, arranged to
meet him alone at a suburban restaurant on 30 July. Bor-
ders kept the appointment but, contrary to instructions,
arranged for Don Lankford to accompany him. Accord-
ing to 'each of the participants, Borders, Lankford, and
Squier met in a booth at Danner's Restaurant, where
Squier exhibited considerable agitation over Borders
having ignored his instructions to come alone. Borders
9 On cross-examination Squier agreed that as president of the Local
Union he could, on the fequest of the grievant , amend any grievance
However, under the circumstances presented , Squier can hardly be fault-
ed for wanting the amendment in writing ` ,
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked -Squier to read the documents he had brought with
him, but Squier refused because Lankford was present.
Then Squier began talking about the forthcoming elec-
tion. He said that if "no union" won the election, there
was a possibility that Schenley would replace them with
agency guards. He said, "I hope you guys know what
you're doing. Local 110 niay not be representing you
after the election." Squier kept repeating that'he hoped
they knew what they were doing, and Lankford and
Borders kept trying to turn, the discussion to the subject
of Borders' grievance. Borders reminded ,Squier that
their contract was still in effect, and asked what Squier
was going _ to do about his grievance. Squier said- he
agreed with the Company's position and did not think
there were 'grounds for arbitration. Squier said that he
was going to send the whole "package" to -the Interna-
tional. He said, "Well, I'll tell you one thing now, no
action will be taken on this grievance at all until after
the election is held. There's a chance that we will lose
the election and -we won't be representing you. Then
your grievance will be the new union 's baby." At this
point their meeting ended. Squier testified that he
wanted to talk to Lankford alone in order that he would
be free from the influence of any "outsider," or'someone
who "was not a member of the,unit" (an obvious refer-
ence to Florence Lay).
On -8 August, Borders talked with Squier `again by
telephoiie.4 Squier acknowledged that he had forwarded
the grievance documents to the International Union, in-
cluding Borders' response to Jefferson's answer. On 9
August, Borders telephoned Donal E. Bray, a , regional
director for the International Union, at his home. Flor-
ence Lay was present when Borders placed the call and
participated in the" conversation over an extension tele-
phone. Borders and Lay asked if Bray had received the
grievance papers from' George Squier. Bray replied that
he had received the grievance and the minutes of the
July 10 meeting, but not Borders' response to Jefferson's
answer. He asked Borders to send him this document,
and Borders agreed to do so. Bray stated that he knew
there were a lot of problems "down there," and that he
"was going to come down here and take care of them".
During a second phone conversation on 15 August, Bray
acknowledged to Borders and Lay that he had received
Borders' response, and would' review all the materials
immediately 'upon returning from his business _ trip to
Ohio.' Bray repeated his assurance . that he intended to
come to Louisville. In their final conversation on 20
August, Borders cautioned Bray that time was running
out for something to be done concerning his grievance.
Bray acknowledged having read Borders' response and
promised to call or write Jefferson to obtain an exten-
sion.' He specifically "said, "I will be down to Louisville
this week and we'll get these problems worked out."s
On 22' August, Borders sent Bray a registered letter
stating-that if he heard nothing further from Bray by 27
August, he would "have to take other steps." On 23
August, when Borders appeared to vote in the NLRB
4 Lay placed the date of this conversation as 9 August .
5 Bray did not dispute the testimony of Borders and, Lay concerning
these telephone conversations.
election, his ballot was challenged by Local 110's ob-
server,Archie Sadler Sr.6 .
According to uncontradicted portions of the testimo-
nies of George Squier, Donal Bray, and the International
Union Vice President Henry Applen, the following
events occurred concerning the handling of Borders'
grievance' after it had been forwarded from Squier to
Bray.' In early August, Bray and Squiei discussed the
matter by telephone. During the conversation, Squier
told Bray about a 1974 work schedule produced- by
Archie Sadler Sr. relating to an incident involving guard
Ray Olligest which, if considered as 'a precedent, did not
,.support Borders' claim. He also mentioned that Lankford
and Borders contended that the Olligest incident'never
occurred.
On ' 17 August, following the series of telephone con-
versations with Borders and Lay described earlier, Bray
phoned International Vice President Henry Applen, and
acquainted him for the first time about the Borders'
matter: Consistent with the assurances he had given to
Borders, Bray asked Applen to secure from,Schenley an
extension of time in which the Union could -consider
whether or not to proceed to arbitration. Applen testified
that although he normally. enters the formal grievance
procedure only on appeal from 'a regional director's deci-
sion about a grievance disposition, in about 50 percent of
the grievance situations he encounters the directors dis-
cuss grievances with him ahead of time in order to pro-
mote early settlement. Such was the case with the Bor-
ders' grievance. Thus, Bray reviewed the details of Bor-
ders' case with Applen and added that, based on his ex-
amination of the contract, he did not believe, it to be
meritorious. Applen,then called and obtained an exten-
sion of time from Schenley through Supervisor Burke,
with whom he discussed the facts, on which the griev-
ance was based . Next Applen called Joseph Lucas, the
former president of Local 110 , an International trustee
from Louisville who has also served the Union as an
International representative. Lucas agreed to contact unit
chairman Archie Sadler Sr. and instruct him to call
Applen. Applen discussed the facts of Borders' grievance,
with Lucas, who advised Applen that the contract provi-
sions in question had been in effect ,since approximately.
1958, during his term as president . which lasted from
1956 until 1957. Lucas supported the manner in which
the Company had interpreted the contract with respect
to .the Borders-Sadler Junior dispute , and said that Bor-
ders did not have a grievance.. Neither Applen nor Lucas
had any knowledge at' that time of Borders ' association
with "the rival union's efforts to unseat Local 110 as col=
lective-bargaining representative of the Bernheim guards.
Applen first learned about the representation petition on
21 August.
Later on August 17, Applen talked by telephone with
Archie Sadler Sr. who explained in detail the history of
the application of article XVII of the contract. After fur-
ther reviewing the contract , and discussing the matter
with two other International representatives in his office,
6 Borders remained a dues-paying member of Local 110 during the
months of June, July, and August 1984.
PLANT GUARDS (SCHENLEY DISTILLERIES)' 519
Applen concluded that Borders' complaint was without
merit. That afternoon wheii Bray called again to deter-
mine if Applen had obtained the extension of ' time,
Applen informed Bray Iof the results of his investigation
and his preliminary conclusion. Applen also told Bray to
schedule a meeting concerning the grievance, 'but if
Bray's investigation revealed a lack of merit, as had Ap
plen's, to withdraw the grievance Pursuant to Applen's
instructions, Bray scheduled a meeting with Jefferson on
27 August for the purpose ' of reviewing the Borders'
matter. Bray testified' that during the course of the next
several evenings, he reviewed ' the grievance materials.
On 23 August, the'NLRB election was held to determine
whether or not the IUGA would replace the Respondent
as the collective-bargaining representative of the Bern-
heim guards The balloting concluded at 3:15 p m., and
shortly thereafter the count revealed that the petitioner
had won.7 Earlier that day, Bray had notified Squier that
the meeting with Jefferson had been : scheduled for 27
August. There is no evidence that Bray received any
news concerning the outcome of the election during 23
August Later that day, after further consideration of the
Borders' grievance, he decided • that it should be with-
drawn for lack of merit. On 24 August, he again called
Squier and immediately told' him to cancel the - meeting
with the Bernheim guards, set for '26 August, and the
meeting with Jefferson on 27 August, because the griev-
ance was being withdrawn.8 Both -Squier and Bray agree
that it was only after this phase of their telephone con-
versation was completed that Squier told Bray the results
of the election. There is no evidence to dispute this testi-
mony. The grievance was formally withdrawn by letter
during September. -
The General Counsel contends that the Respondents
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to ar-
bitrate Borders' grievance because of his and other bar-
gaining unit employees', "concerted dissident union activ-
ity." The Respondents argue that the. General 'Counsel
has failed to meet his burden of proof on these issues. ILL
agree. The United States Supreme Court held in the
leading case of Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967), that an
individual employee did not have an absolute right to
have his grievance taken to arbitration so long as the
union did not arbitrarily ignore a' meritorious grievance
or process it in a perfunctory fashion. The Court further
observed that it was necessary for the union to have con-
siderable discretion over the grievance machinery in
order to promote settlements and bring frivolous griev-
ances to an end prior to the more costly and time con-
suming steps in grievance procedures. Thus, "A breach
of the statutory duty of fair representation occurred only
when,a union's conduct toward a member of the collec-
tive-bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad
faith ." It is axiomatic that the burden of proving viola-
tions of the Act remains with the General Counsel In a
° The IUGA was certified on 31 August 1984
8 This finding is in accordance with Bray's testimony that he specifical-
ly told Squier the grievance was being withdrawn Bray displayed an ex-
cellent memory while testifying Squier did not dispute Bray's testimony,
but stated that he did not recall whether or not Bray said the grievance
would be withdrawn Squier did recall that Bray's position was that Bor-
ders' grievance did not merit further processing
case, such as this, where the only witnesses to crucial
events are those,adverse to-the General Counsel's case, -
that burden becomes exceedingly 'difficult, if not impossi-
ble. In such a situation the party having the burden of
proof must depend both on logic, as revealed by a chain
of circumstantial evidence, and the ability to impugn the
credibility of the opposition's witnesses. In ' the instant
proceeding,' in my view, the General Counsel was unsuc-
cessful in both of these aspects. I' am persuaded that all
of the witnesses who testified in the case, from both
sides, attempted to tell the truth to the best of their
knowledge and belief. I have, therefore, based my find-
ings of fact concerning the events which transpired on
an amalgam of their testimonies. There are, to be sure,
certain inconsistencies in the accounts given by witnesses
from both sides, but I am convinced that none of these
occasional inconsistencies represent either an intentional
or significant distortion of the facts. Therefore, any con-
clusions concerning whether the Respondents violated
the Act in the instant case must be based entirely on the
complete picture -portrayed by the sum total of the testi-
monies of all these truthful witnesses. It is at this point,
in• my opinion, that the General Counsel's theory of the
case is defective, because the final result cannot be great-
er than the sum total of its parts. It is only by drawing
certain inferences, which the General Counsel desires to
have drawn, and. piling them on top of other favorable
inferences that the General Counsel's burden of proof.
can be sustained. -
In formulating his grievances, Borders did not utilize
the services -of his lawful collective-bargaining represent-,
ative, but, instead, prepared the grievance with the assist-
ance of Lankford and Lay, who held no union ,office. He
then presented the grievance to acting committeeman
Pearson, who accepted it and took it to Local 110 Presi-
dent George Squier. Although Squier was the proper
union official to represent Borders in processing the
grievance at the early stages, he was never afforded the
opportunity to do so, since Borders insisted on using
Lankford as his spokesman. This practice continued
through the 10 July three-step hearing. It is small
wonder that Squier was not thoroughly familiar with
Borders' case and had little to say at this meeting, since
Borders had clearly demonstrated his desire not to use
the Union's services, and had resisted at all stages the
Union's efforts to perform their functions on his behalf.
Had Borders acted otherwise, he would have learned
prior to the step 3 meeting that he had placed Squier in
an impossible, if not unlawful, position by seeking the
discharge of a bargaining unit employee as part of the
remedy requested in the grievance. Thereafter, Borders
failed to supply Squier with the requested amendment to
the grievance,, deleting this objectionable feature. The'
fact that Squier insisted on having this change in writing
is certainly understandable under the circumstances.
Thereafter Borders never met with Squier without -
Lay or Lankford being present. When Squier attempted
to meet with Borders alone to resolve these difficulties at
Danner's Restaurant, Borders brought Lankford with
him despite Squier's instructions. There is nothing sinis-
ter in Squier's request since nothing in the law requires
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an,employee's exclusive representative to share his griev-
ance responsibilities with unauthorized persons. That
such persons may also happen to be dissidents does not
make-the refusal to include them, in ' otherwise confiden-
tial _ union matters, unlawful. Furthermore, although,
Squier's remarks to Lay and Borders on 28 July,, "and at,
Danner's in Lankford's presence on ' 30 July,' may have
been unwise, when viewed in the light of 'subsequent
events, these remarks may just as easily be construed to
have a proper connotation as an improper one. Thus,,
Squier's comment that Borders could be "messing up a
good thing," could be "cutting his own thr`oat," and'
might not know what he was doing, referred just as logi-
cally to` the given explanation that a favorable decision
for Borders on the grievance could have had adverse of---
fects for him'with respect to the bypass procedure, as it
could the General Counsel's interpretation' of the re-
marks as implied threats. In addition; Squier's discussion
of the forthcoming election contains nothing which indi-
cates an intent ` not properly to ` pursue Borders' griev-
ance. At most Squier's remarks were an innocuous state-
ment of personal opinion or belief Ywhich are not proba-
tive of the allegations' in the complaint. Auto Workers
Local Ill (Wheel Horse Products), 248 NLRB 1013
(1990).
Squier promptly forwarded the grievance through the
proper channels for processing by the International; and
that further action was indeed-taken before the'election.
The `grievance was investigated and considered by the
authorized officials of the International Union, who had
no knowledge of either-Borders' association with the dis-
sidents or the likelihood 'that, Local 110 faced a serious
election challenge. It is undisputed that - Bray's decision
to withdraw the grievance was made at a time when he
had no knowledge of the outcome of the election, and
that the 'decision was conveyed to Squier before= Bray
was informed of the, election results.
Certainly-the timing of some of the various events
leading to the withdrawal of Borders!' grievance raise
some suspicions concerning the, Respondents' motives.
However, a chain of suspicions'` does not prove the Re-
spondents guilty of unfair labor practices. Only by as-
suming, .in the first instance,' that because the Respond-
ents lost' the election they must have had, a retaliatory
motive in not taking Borders' grievance to-arbitration,
and then picking and choosing selected facts to support
that basic assumption, can the General Counsel's position
appear plausible. This I decline, to do, preferring instead
to reach my conclusions on the basis of the entire record,
which,' in my opinion, shows, that the Respondents did
not act in an arbitrary manner in refusing to take Bor-
ders' grievance to arbitration. I find that the ' General
Counsel has failed- to prove that the Respondents violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The complaint will be
dismissed.,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Schenley Distilleries, Inc. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of -Section 2(2), (6), and,
(7) of the-Act.
2, The Respondents are ,jointly, and severally labor or-,
ganizations within the meaning,. of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. The Respondents have not jointly and severally vio-,
lated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act as alleged in the com-
plaint..
On these findings of fact ,and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend--
ed9
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48.of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses