Shook & Fletcher Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1246 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY and INTERNATION-
AL UNION, MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS, LOCAL
244. Case No. 10-CA-1620. February 24, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman
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 General Counsel and the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
supporting briefs.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications:
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.' In so finding
we rely, as did the Trial Examiner, upon the following conduct
which, we find, is attributable to the Respondent: (1) The
circulation of an antiunion petition by Supervisors Hutchens
and Rowe, and the procurement of employee signatures thereto
by Hutchens' threats to employees; (2) threats made by
Hutchens, Mine Foreman Blackburn, and Construction Super-
intendent Hill to the effect that the Respondent would shut down
its mine if the Union successfully organized the employees;
and (3) the interrogation by Hutchens, Rowe, and Hill of
employees concerning employee membership in the Union and
the organization of the Union.
In support of our finding that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we also rely upon a threat made
by Rowe to bring any employee who talked about a union
to Superintendent-of-Operations Craddock for firing.'
'The General Counsel's exceptions and brief are addressed only to the breadth of the
Trial Examiner's recommended order and inconsistencies therein.
2The Respondent's contention that the complaint herein is barred by Section 10 (b) of
the Act is without merit. Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157, enfd. 185 F. 2d 1021
(C. A. 5), set aside on another ground 189 F. 2d 428.
3 The Intermediate Report does not specifically allude to Rowe's threat to have employees
fired for speaking about a union. Employee Larrimore testified that the threat was made;
it was in effect denied by Rowe. We credit Larrimore, relying upon the Trial Examiner's
resolution of another credibility issue between Larrimore and Jtowe, wherein the Trial Ex-
aminer credited Larrimore's testimony that he was questioned by Rowe with respect to a
union publication.
107 NLRB No. 275.
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY 1247
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent circulated an antiunion
petition, interrogated its employees with respect to union
membership and activities, and threatened its employees
with economic reprisals because of the Union' s organizing
efforts and because of the employees' union activities, we shall
order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We are also convinced that the unfair labor practices
committed by the Respondent are potentially related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that the
danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive
purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coex-
tensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
of employees guaranteed by the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Shook
& Fletcher Supply Company of Russellville, Alabama, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
membership and activities.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge because of
their union membership and activities.
(c) Threatening its employees with the closing of its mines,
or with economic and other reprisals, if the employees join
or retain membership in the Union, or engage in activities
on behalf of the Union.
(d) Circulating a petition among its employees indicating
employee rejection of unions.
(e) 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 Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local
244, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining 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
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its offices and places of
business at Russellville, Alabama, and at its Warner and
Blackburn mines in Russellville, Alabama, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice shall be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, and shall, after being duly signed by
a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for at least sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region,
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4In 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
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 interrogate our employees concerning
their union membership and activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
because of their union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will
close our mines, or with economic and other reprisals,
if they join or retain membership in the Union, or engage
in activities on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT circulate a petition among our employees
indicating that our employees reject union organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other 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 Union, Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, Local 244, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY 1249
aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of 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.
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY,
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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a complaint issued on May 29, 1953, by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board through the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, and an answer thereto
verified June 3, 1953, and filed by Shook & Fletcher Supply Company, herein called the
Respondent, and the issues framed thereby, this matter came on for hearing before the under-
signed Trial Examiner at Tuscumbia, Alabama, on September 22, 1953. The hearing was
concluded on that day. International Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 244,
herein sometimes called the Union, previously on November 13, 1952, had filed a charge
alleging certain unfair labor practices by the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136), herein called the Act;
and had on May 28, 1953, filed a first amended charge alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act, which in substance are: That the Respondent interrogated its employees concerning
their union membership, activities, and desires; that it threatened its employees with discharge
because of their union membership and activities; that it threatened its employees that it
would close its mines if they joined or retained membership in the Union, or engaged in
activities on behalf of the Union, that it threatened its employees with economic and other
reprisals if they joined or retained membership in the Union, or engaged in activities on
behalf of the Union; that it circulated a petition among its employees to ascertain the union
membership and desires of its employees; that it threatened its employees with economic
and other reprisals if they failed or refused to sign the petition, and that it threatened to
discharge Its employees if they failed or refused to sign that petition
At the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel,
and the Union by its representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues to argue orally upon the
record, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law
were afforded all parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, from his observation of the witnesses, and after
careful consideration, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT i
The Respondent, Shook & Fletcher Supply Company, at all tunes material hereto, has
maintained its principal office at Birmingham, Alabama, and has maintained a place of
1 The parties entered into the following stipulation at the hearing: "it is stipulated that
the Respondent is engaged in the mining of iron ore near Russellville, Alabama, and during
the year 1952, the Respondent operated two mines, the Warner and the Blackburn mines,
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
business at Russellville, Alabama, where it is, and has been, continuously engaged in the
mining of iron ore. The only place of business of the Respondent involved herein is located
at Russellville, Alabama. At its Russellville, Alabama, location, in the course and conduct
of its business operations during the past year, which period is representative of all times
material herein, mined and sold iron ore valued at more than $100,000 to customers located
within the State of Alabama. During the same period each of the said customers sold and
shipped materials valued at more than $ 25,000 to points outside the State of Alabama.
II. THE UNION INVOLVED
International Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 244, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE ASSERTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Activities of the Union
Local 244 was chartered by International Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers in the
year 1917; it became inactive after a time, and its charter was reestablished in the year
1936.2 In May 1952, Horade White began organizing activities in Russellville on behalf
of the Union, among the employees of the Respondent, after he was approached by a group
of these employees. When he first went there, he met with them at their homes--later,
meetings were held at the union hall by Local 244 in Russellville, located near its main
street, and were attended by employees of the Respondent, after that, some meetings were
held there among only employees of the Respondent White estimated the population of
Russellville at 3,000 White was active on behalf of the Union from May until October 1952. 9
From this, and from the incidents related below, it is apparently assumed that the Trial
Examiner will infer, which he does, that the Respondent was aware of the Union's organizing
activities.
Supervision at the Warner and Blackburn mines
During the times pertinent hereto, in the spring and summer of 1952, Edmund Craddock
was superintendent of the operations of the Respondent's two mines, the Warner mine and
the Blackburn mine, Wayne S. Blackburn was mine foreman at the Warner mine, F. A.
Rowe was master mechanic for both mines, W. P. Hill was construction superintendent
for all operations, and Odell Hutchens was night foreman at the Blackburn mine. All of
these were salaried employees except Hutchens. Each of them at these times was super-
visor within the the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, although the Respondent takes the
definite position that Hutchens was not a supervisor, and, as the Trial Examiner construes
its position, that there is some doubt that Rowe could have been considered a supervisor
On the preponderance of the evidence, including the testimony of each of the two men, the
conclusion is inescapable that each was a supervisor.
As to Hutchens, the whole weight of the evidence goes to show that he was in sole charge
of operations at the Blackburn mine on the night shift -- he made assignments of work,
according to instructions given to him by higher management; he had the authority to remove
a man from work for unfitness or other reason, or to permit a man to take time off, or
to send him to Craddock "the next morning" if he felt the man was unable properly to
perform his work. In his position, it seems clear that he was required to exercise authority
and the use of independent judgment. Even though the ultimate responsibility for operation
of the Warner mine rested with his immediate supervisor, Nelson, an assistant superintendent
with about 150 employees . That during October 1953, for economic reasons , the Company
suspended operations at the Warner mine and curtailed operations at the Blackburn mine
That about that time about 15 employees were laid off and the charge alleging discrimi-
nation of certain employees was filed in 1952 and later amended to eliminate the charge
of discrimination."
2 Known as Russellville Miners Local Union 244 , its membership is comprised of miners
in and around Russellville , Alabama.
3Unless otherwise specifically stated , all dates mentioned below are for the year 1952.
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY 1251
who lived in proximity to the mine , he said that it would be unusual for him to call Nelson
at night . He had the first responsibility for operations on the night shift at that mine.
Rowe , as master mechanic , or chief mechanic , had the responsibility for the maintenance
of machines and equipment , the assignment and supervision of work in this connection of
some 6 mechanics and 3 welders , and the repair work done by other employees on the machines
or equipment used by them . Although he worked on machines when he had the time,
nevertheless his duties required the application of independent judgment and discretion
ordinarily exercised by a supervisor.
Alleged Expression of Nonunion Preference by Employees
Four documents of a single sheet each were introduced into evidence at the hearing by
the General Counsel, each bearing signatures of employees of the Respondent .4 Two of
the documents read:
The State of Alabama
Franklin County
We, the undersigned employees of Shook and Fletcher Supply Company, Blackburn
mines, prefer working non -union as we have in the past
Dated this July 14, 1952.
Signed:
and then were the signed names, 24 on one document and 36 on the other The other 2
documents , of a single sheet each , read identically , except that in place of the words " Black-
burn mines" the words "Warner mines" are found, and the signatures appearing thereon,
30 on the one sheet and 26 on the other , are not the same
From the witnesses called by the General Counsel, testimony was elicited to this effect:
Virgil Boyd Flippo, employed on the night shift at the Blackburn mine , was handed a copy
of the document 5 by Hutchens, the night foreman, on about July 15, a payday, and told to
sign it and he would receive his check; whereupon Flippo said he signed , and received
his check. Arnold G. C. Hendrix, on what appears to have been the same day, said that
Hutchens presented him with the list and told him to "sign this and I will give you a check,"
and that he signed and Hutchens gave him his paycheck. Hendrix was then employed on the
night shift at the Blackburn mine. James Clyde Colburn, employed at the Blackburn mine
on the day shift, testified that on about July 15 he saw Rowe hand the list to Robert F. (Bob)
Wilson, a mechanic who worked under Rowe, and that Wilson then asked him (Colburn)
if he was going to sign--that when he answered "No," Wilson told him, "You had better sign
it if you want a lob " Wayne G. Larrimore, also employed on the night , or second, shift
at the Blackburn mine at the same time , testified that Hutchens handed him the list and
told him either to sign it and receive his check or go to the office and pick up both checks--
that one and the one for the amount of pay customarily withheld for a pay period at the
beginning of employment
Rowe, with duties at both mines , customarily and regularly traveled between the two
each day by automobile . At this particular time, Hutchens said that Rowe gave the list to
him and said , "Let the boys see it ." Rowe said , " some of the boys" asked him to carry the
list to the Blackburn mine, which he did, and there handed it to Hutchens . Because Rowe
ordinarily carried vouchers, invoices , and similar company communications and other
mes6ages of various kinds between the Warner mine, where the principal office of the
Respondent was located , and the Blackburn mine, and returned or carried like material
from the Blackburn mine to the Warner mine, he could not be precise regarding the fact
of the delivery of the list to him
Hutchens categorically denied the remarks attributed to him by Flippo, Hendrix, and
Larrimor :. Wilson said he had spoken to Colburn , but denied that he had made the statement
attributed to him in their conversation
Elmer Wade, a witness presented by the Respondent , was a night watchman at the Warner
mine during the summer of 1952 ( He presently is employed , and has been for the past 8
4The authenticity of no signature was questioned ; several were proven by the testimony
of a signer
5Sometirnes referred to in testimony , and hereinafter called the list.
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
months, as a bulldozer operator ) He testified , in substance , that because he felt the employees
of the Respondent were well treated , he called at the office of an attorney and there , with the
assistance of that attorney ' s stenographer , a friend of his, composed the form of document
above sometimes referred to as the list, that after its preparation , he took a number of
copies to the mine, and gave several of these copies to Wilson with the request to have
"the list filled out" by the men at the Warner mine . His testimony is corroborated by
that of Wilson , who said that Wade gave him copies of the list at Russellville , asked him
to pass them around at the Warner mine during the day shift , and leave them at the machine
shop at the Warner mine for Wade to pick up.
Craddock, the Respondent's superintendent, testified that he found the list on his desk
one morning , that he had never heard of or knew of it before , and had never suggested that
such a list be prepared . He, on the basis of the record herein and on the explanation of his
diverse duties and responsibilities , may be excused from inference of knowledge by him
of the circumstances surrounding the circulation of the list.6
The Trial Examiner must now resolve the troublesome problem of credibility of witnesses
in order to determine whether or not the Respondent was responsible for or encouraged the cir-
culation and the obtaining of signatures to the so-called list . To him, after seeing and hear-
ing the witness, it seems incredible that Wade should have, on his own initiative , undertaken
to have prepared ' a form of disavowal of union interest at a time when it was comparatively
intense for- circulation among the employees of the Respondent On the witness stand,
Wade was not impressive . Hutchens was a careful , if a somewhat inarticulate witness,
on this issue in the case , as on another mentioned below , his testimony cannot be considered
to carry conviction . Therefore , the Trial Examiner discounts in full part the implication
that Wade was the instigator of the circulation of the list , and finds that Hutchens, as a
representative of management , took active part , with Rowe, in obtaining the signatures which
appear on those four sheets.
Asserted Threats of Shutdown
At the hearing , in support of certain allegations of the complaint summarized at the
beginning of this report, the General Counsel undertook to prove that the Respondent , through
some members of its management , had conveyed a threat that either one or both of its
mines would be shut down in the event the Union should become the collective-bargaining
agent for its employees . The testimony advanced in support of the General Counsel's case
in this respect, in substance , included this- that Hutchens told Hendrix , during the time
White was actively leading the union organizing campaign, that if the employees organized
into a union , the mines would shut down and "they would all be out of a job"; that Blackburn
told Donald L. Pounders , who worked under him on the day shift at the Warner mine, in
effect, that "Mr Fletcher had always said that Shook & Fletcherwould close down before
a union could come in", and that Rowe had made similar statements to other employees.
Rowe denied that he said that the mines would be closed if the Union was successful in its
organizing effort , Hutchens , too, denied making that or any similar statement ; and Blackburn
denied the same kind of statement attributed to him by Pounders , who was employed on the
day shift at the Warner mine, as did Hill deny the testimony of Sam T. (Tony) Pounders
to the same effect
Here again , the lack of force in Hutchen ' s testimony must leave doubt as to the weight to
be accorded it, and the same comment is applicable to the testimony of Blackburn. Rowe,
here, was unconvincing, as he was in his testimony on other points mentioned above. The
Trial Examiner must therefore find that the Respondent did manage to convey to its em-
ployees, through members of its management staff , that it might cease operations at one
or both of its mines in the event it became required to deal with its employees through the
Union.
Interrogation
Several witnesses called on behalf of the General Counsel testified that they had been
questioned by representatives of the Respondent concerning their membership in or sym-
6Other lists, so-called, appear to have been customarily circulated among the employees
at either mine , to which employees have signed their names , denoting their subscriptions
to funds for flowers in case of death or injury occurring to fellow workers or members
of their families, or for other similar reasons
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY 1253
pathies for the Union , or had been questioned concerning the feelings of other employees
toward the Union, at and during the time when White was engaged in union organizing activities.
Hendrix said that Hutchens asked him if Roy Fleming , a day-shift employee at the Warner
mine , belonged to the Union , Tony Pounders said that Hill had asked him if White had been in
to see him at the time Tony Pounders had asked Hill what he thought of the Union; Larrimore
said that Hutchens inquired, after he had handed Larrimore the "list," whether he knew of
anyone who had anything to do with or held a card in the Union. According to Larrimore, he
was questioned by Rowe about an article in a "union paper," presumably a newspaper or
other publication, written or signed by White, in which something was said to the effect
that men at Shook & Fletcher were being "pushed around " because they had to sign an anti-
union paper before they could receive their paychecks; again, according to Larrimore,
Rowe compared the earnings of the Respondent's employees with those of employees of
another employer, and asked him what use a union could be when the earnings of the Re-
spondent's employees were shown to be more than those of the other employer.
The testimony of the witnesses called by the General Counsel in these respects was
met head -on, and fully denied, by witnesses called by the Respondent
On this state of facts , the Trial Examiner finds more weight should be accorded to the
direct testimony in support of the contentions of the General Counsel than that to be accorded
to the flat denials made on behalf of the Respondent.
Upon the preponderance of the testimony taken herein , the Trial Examiner is of the opinion
that the Respondent by reason of the activities of Hutchens, Hill, and Rowe contravened
the provisions of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act as charged in the complaint, and he so finds,
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, hereof , occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, 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 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record of the case , the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 International Union, Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 244, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By interrogating its employees concerning their union membership , activities, and
desires, by threatening its employees with discharge because of their union membership
and activities , by threatening its employees that it would close its mines if they joined
or retained membership in the Union or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union, by
threatening its employees with economic and other reprisals if they joined or retained
membership in the Union or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union , by circulating
a petition among its employees to ascertain the union membership and desires of its employees,
by threatening its employees wit,ti economic and other reprisals if they failed or refused
to sign the petition , and by threatening to discharge its employees if they failed or refused
to sign a petition to ascertain the union membership and desires of its employees, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2,(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 discourage membership in International Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, Local 244, or discourage activity in support of that organization, or any other
labor organization, or discourage any employee from exercising the right secured to
him under the National Labor Relations Act by discriminating in any manner in regard
to hire, or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist International Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 244, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in 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 em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
SHOOK & FLETCHER SUPPLY COMPANY,
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.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPER-
HANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 902, AFL and G. J.
McDANIELS
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPER-
HANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 902, AFL and EARL
SAYLOR. Cases Nos. 33-CB-35 and 33-CB-36. February24,
1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 13, 1953, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway
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.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the -Respondent ' s excep-
tions , and the entire record in the case. However, we do not
107 NLRB No. 265.