State Asphalt Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

STATE ASPHALT COMPANY, INC. 1063
State Asphalt Company , Inc. and Local 486, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case 7-
CA-11505
August 12, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On May 9, 1975, Administrative Law Judge James
M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed
cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof and in
response to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
1 The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge , and Respondent has excepted to certain
others . It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative
Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear prepon-
derance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are
incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing his findings.
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (herein the Union), against State
Asphalt Company, Inc. (herein Respondent). Based on
these charges the Board's Acting Regional Director for Re-
gion 7 issued a complaint December 3 alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (herein the Act), by discharging employee
David Howard on September 26 because of his activities
on behalf of the Union. Respondent filed an answer to the
complaint, which it amended at the hearing, admitting var-
ious allegations including the facts respecting interstate
commerce but denying the legal conclusion that Respon-
dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. Respondent also denies the alleged discriminatory dis-
charge of Howard. The case was tried before me at Bay
City, Michigan, on January 30, 1975.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and consideration of the briefs of the General
Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
Respondent is a Michigan corporation engaged at Sagi-
naw, Michigan, in the production, sale, and installation of
asphalt paving for both commercial and residential cus-
tomers . The complaint (as amended at the hearing) alleges,
and Respondent admits, that during the calendar year
1973, a period representative of Respondent's operations, it
performed services valued in excess of $500,000 and also
sold goods and services valued over $100,000 to Fryling
Construction Company which, at its installations or sites in
Michigan, annually received shipments, or was furnished
services, valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside
Michigan. Based on these admitted facts I find that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent's day-to-day operations are managed by
John Bommarito, its corporate secretary, and by Donald
Yeager, its field superintendent. Each owns 25 percent of
the corporate stock. Bommarito does the estimating and
runs the office where he spends 80 percent of his time. The
operation of the asphalt plant and yard, and the delivery
and application of asphalt to jobsites are the responsibility
of Yeager.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: The
issue in this case is whether David Howard was fired be-
cause of his union activity. As set out more fully below I
find that he was not.
The case arises from unfair labor practice charges filed
with the National Labor Relations Board (herein the
Board) on October 17, 1974,' by Local 486, International
ti. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is an organization which admits to member-
ship employees of various employers, and including em-
ployees of Respondent, and which represents employees
with respect to wages, hours , and other terms and condi-
tions of employment. It is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
On October 11 the Union filed with the Board a petition
for a representation election (Case 7-RC-12724) among
i All dates herein are in 1974 unless otherwise noted.
219 NLRB No. 172
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent 's truckdrivers. On November 13 the Union
withdrew the petition.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Employment of David Howard
Prior to his employment with Respondent , David How-
ard had been a truckdriver for Manuel Martin from April
25 to June 10. He admitted that while operating a truck for
Martin he had had a couple of moving violations . On June
13, having seen Respondent 's newspaper advertisement for
applicants , Howard filed an application for employment
with Respondent.
In August Respondent acquired a new Ford tandem 10-
wheel dump truck valued at approximately $17,000. Yeag-
er, who did most of the hiring for Respondent, needed a
driver for this truck. Three or four days after the truck was
acquired he pulled Howard's application out of his office
file and , since he appeared qualified on the application,
called to see if he was interested in driving for Respondent.
Howard said he was, they agreed on wages, and Howard
was hired by Respondent as of August 23. He continued to
be employed until his discharge on September 26.
Although he knew nothing about Howard other than the
information on his employment application, Yeager as-
signed him to operate the new Ford 10-wheel tandem. On
the surface this entrusting of a valuable new piece of equip-
ment to an unknown operator appears strange. However,
the record indicates that all of Respondent's trucks, which
included four tandems and one single -axle truck , were new
and the other drivers were content with their assigned vehi-
cles.
As a truckdriver for Respondent, Howard, among other
things, made deliveries of asphalt , stone-creet, and fill to
various jobsites . His work was directed and supervised
principally by Yeager who was in charge of field opera-
tions, although he also was subject to the authority of John
Bommarito who appeared at jobsites occasionally but less
frequently than Yeager.
B. The Union Activity
Interest in union representation developed among
Respondent's employees in early September when Howard
and fellow drivers Ken Gomey and James (Porkey) Akers
began discussing the benefits of unionism while they were
on the job. This led Howard to call the union hall around
the first part of September . He talked with Business Agent
Carl Havalda who instructed him to have interested em-
ployees fill out and sign union authorization cards. Haval-
da mailed him a supply of cards. Howard distributed them
among the employees both on jobsites and at the asphalt
plant. He passed out nine cards in all, four at the plant and
the others at jobsites , and he received back seven signed
cards . He then delivered these signed cards to Havalda.
Howard also arranged with Havalda to meet with How-
ard, Akers, and another employee . Havalda discussed with
them the provisions for wages , fringe benefits, and other
terms of employment contained in the Teamsters standard
road builders contract . They also discussed whether the
Union should petition the Board for an election or call the
employees out on strike to obtain recognition.
About September 23, according to the credited testimo-
ny of Donald Yeager, he heard that the employees were
having conferences about the Union in Smokey 's Bar. John
Bommarito testified , and I find , that Yeager informed him
about what he had heard about 2 weeks before Howard
was discharged.
Yeager also credibly testified that around September 23,
while Respondent was engaged on a job on Bay Road, he
heard a roller operator named Milton who was with a crew
standing around at the job say to Howard something to the
effect that it looks like you are going to have a union.
On September 25 the Union sent a registered letter to
Respondent demanding recognition . The letter was re-
ceived in Respondent's office the following morning and
signed for by an office clerical . I find that Respondent had
knowledge of the union demand from the time of the re-
ceipt of the registered letter . Bonunarito testified that al-
though the registered letter arrived in the morning, he nev-
er opened the mail until afternoon and therefore had no
knowledge of the Union's demand . I do not credit his deni-
al of knowledge during the morning of the Union's de-
mand. It seems illogical , and in the operation of a small
business abnormal , to delay looking at obviously impor-
tant mail until later in the day . Even ordinary correspon-
dence which might contain checks or contracts for work
would, it seems to me, likely be opened as soon as received.
Bommarito also testified that he had no knowledge of
Howard's union activity . Yeager testified that he had no
knowledge of any union activity prior to the Union's de-
mand letter . Yet at other points in their testimony they
admitted some knowledge of employee discussions about
the Union in Smokey 's Bar, and Yeager had heard the re-
mark which roller operator Milton directed to Howard.
Considering these facts together with the fact that
Respondent's operation is relatively small involving only a
handful of employees and that Howard 's union solicitation
occurred partly at the asphalt plant and partly on jobsites,
and that Yeager was in charge of and frequently present at
both facets of the operation, I find that Yeager and Bom-
marito both knew that union activity was going on and
also that Howard was involved in it . I make this finding
even though Howard testified that he never told any man-
agement official about his interest in the Union and en-
deavored to keep it quiet by advising his fellow employees
not to publicize it. These efforts at secrecy were obviously
unsuccessful because management very quickly learned of
the discussions in Smokey's Bar and also witnessed
Milton's comment to Howard on or about September 23.
C. The Discharge of David Howard
Respondent's regular weekly pay period is Saturday
through Friday, Friday being the normal payday. Howard
was discharged without notice on Thursday, September 26.
On that morning he arrived at the asphalt plant about 6
and started to work at 6:15. He first performed his regular
duties of emptying the bins in the asphalt plant . This con-
STATE ASPHALT COMPANY, INC.
sumed about a half hour's time .2 After emptying the bins
Howard hauled three loads of asphalt to a jobsite at the
Bridgeport School, a distance of about 17 miles. Each trip
took about 40 to 45 minutes plus 15 to 20 minutes for
loading at the asphalt plant and a few moments for unload-
ing at the jobsite.
Yeager was also at the jobsite that morning but returned
to the plant. When he did so yardman William Bozer told
him, "Don, you got a problem." He then reported to Yeag-
er that he had seen Howard driving his truck in a way that
Yeager did not like . He was referring to driving the truck
too fast over a railroad crossing. According to Yeager he
then told Bommarito it was the last straw , that he could do
nothing with Howard. Bommarito testified that at that
point the decision to fire Howard was made.
When Howard returned to the plant for his next load of
asphalt, between 10 : 30 and 11 according to Bommarito, he
told Howard he was driving the truck way too fast; that he
could not have anyone driving the trucks the way Howard
had been driving them; and that Howard was fired? How-
ard then filled out his timecard and left the premises.
The next day, Friday, September 27, being a regular pay-
day, Howard returned to pick up his check and a torque
wrench he had left behind. The following Friday, October
4, he also returned for an additional paycheck. According
to him on neither occasion did Bommarito discuss why he
had fired him nor did Howard inquire.
D. The Reasons for the Discharge of David Howard
1. His initial instructions
On August 23 when Howard was first employed by Re-
spondent, Yeager instructed him as follows: "The instruc-
tions was that he had a new truck. I wanted it kept up and
I wanted him to work on time. I didn't want, you know,
nobody to miss work. I don't like it when somebody works
periodically, you know , whenever they desire . I hire a man
and I want him on the job every morning and that this was
a new truck and I wanted it to be drove according to my
specifications that I was giving him and my specifications
at that time was I wanted it to be drove carefully and that
was about the context of my instructions."
Throughout his employment with Respondent, Howard
kept the truck immaculately. He was the best driver Re-
spondent had. According to Yeager he at first drove care-
fully, but after a couple of weeks he began to drive faster.
2. Reprimands for improper driving
At the hearing Howard admitted that during his previ-
ous employment with Manuel Martin he had a couple of
moving violations while operating a truck. He also admit-
ted that around the first part of September , during his em-
ployment with Respondent, Yeager had discussed with him
2 According to Howard it was at that point that he walked over to roller
operator Milton who within the hearing of Yeager made a remark to How-
ard to the effect that they were going union . As noted earlier herein, I find
that this remark was made on a jobsite 2 days earlier.
2 Howard's testimony indicates Bommarito gave no reason for the dis-
charge . As set out later herein , I do not credit this portion of Howard's
testimony.
1065
his manner of driving and told him that he was crossing the
the railroad tracks too fast. Yeager directed him to slow
down a bit crossing the tracks. Howard did not feel he was
going that fast. He testified that Yeager never warned him
that he would be fired for driving too fast.
According to Howard that was the only occasion on
which Yeager discussed excessive speed with him. On the
other hand Respondent's yardman William Bozer testified
credibly that about a week before his discharge Howard
told Bozer that Yeager had stopped him and told him to
slow down, and that Howard justified his way of driving by
saying to Bozer that Yeager wanted asphalt out on the job
and he was getting it out there. Based on the testimony of
Bozer, which is consistent with some of the testimony of
Yeager, I find that Howard was again reprimanded for fast
driving about a week before his discharge.
Yeager testified in considerable detail about his repri-
mands to Howard for driving too fast, but his testimony is
not consistent in all respects and for that reason is confus-
ing. On direct examination Yeager said that, although
Howard at first drove carefully, after a time he began driv-
ing a little too fast and that Yeager spoke to him about it
three times, twice in the field and once in the office, telling
him that the truck was new and he was not following in-
structions . According to Yeager, Howard did not change
his ways because later Yeager personally observed him
speeding. On cross-examination, Yeager related how the
day before Howard was fired he talked with him in the
office about his driving too fast, telling him to take it easy
on the truck, that Yeager wanted to keep him, that ev-
eryone liked him, that he kept the truck clean, and that
there were a lot of things he liked about him. But on fur-
ther questioning by the Administrative Law Judge he indi-
cated he had spoken to Howard the week before he was
discharged, that he spoke with him two or three times, and
that the last occasion was in the office on the Friday of the
week before his discharge. Considering that Yeager contra-
dicted himself about the times at which he spoke with
Howard and that no other evidence indicates he spoke with
him about this subject on the day before his discharge, I
find that the last occasion that he took Howard to task for
fast driving was about a week before his discharge.
I further find that Yeager was correct in his testimony
that he spoke to Howard on more than one occasion. This
is consistent with Howard's admission that he was spoken
to in early September and also with Howard's conversation
with Bozer about Yeager's reprimand to him. In addition,
John Bommarito testified credibly , and I find , that he first
learned of the problems with Howard's driving about 2
weeks after he started to work, at which time Yeager re-
ported to Bommarito that he had heard that Howard was
driving too fast. At that time Bommarito told Yeager to
speak with Howard and, according to Bommarito, Yeager
said he would.
When Bommarito fired Howard he told him, according
to Bommarito, that he was driving the truck way too fast,
that Bommarito could not have anyone driving the trucks
the way Howard had been driving, and he was fired. How-
ard, on the other hand, denied that when he was fired he
was told it was because of the manner in which he drove
the trucks. On this conflict I credit Bommarito. First of all
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Howard denied that he had any trouble or discussions with
any prior employers regarding the manner of his driving
yet Manuel Martin , a disinterested witness who had previ-
ously employed Howard , testified credibly that between
April 25 and June 10 he had two or three discussions with
Howard about driving too fast . Secondly Bommarito's tes-
timony is consistent with the events which led up to the
discharge . On the morning of September 26 Bozer had ob-
served Howard crossing the railroad tracks at an excessive
speed . He reported this to Yeager and according to Bozer,
"I told Don he should talk to Dave and have him slow the
truck down , you know, from the speed he was driving. You
see, bumps, railroad tracks and stuff is hard on the equip-
ment." Yeager then reported to Bommarito and the deci-
sion to discharge Howard was made. In these circum-
stances it seems likely that Bommarito did refer to
Howard's driving at the time of the discharge. I so find.
Although Yeager did not discharge Howard , his confer-
ence with Bommarito preceded it, and he testified that
Howard was discharged because of the way he drove the
truck. Yeager denied the discharge was related to
Howard's union activity . Howard's speed in getting to and
from the jobsite on September 26, apart from his speed at
the railroad crossing, does not appear to have figured in
Yeager's complaint against him.
3. Evidence of union animus
The General Counsel argues that Respondent showed
animus toward the Union by a remark attributed to Bom-
marito at the time Howard left the asphalt plant following
his discharge to the effect that, ". . . there he goes, anyone
else who wants to join the Union can go with him." Ralph
Stephens , Respondent's mechanic at the time, testified that
Bommarita made this remark while standing in the plant
yard with Yeager and that he (Stephens) and Ken, the driv-
er of a Chevrolet 10-wheel tandem truck on which Ste-
phens was working, were also present . Stephens ' helper was
somewhere in the general area . Neither the helper nor the
driver of the tandem truck is further identified in the rec-
ord. They were not called to testify. Stephens testified he
was about 20 feet away from Bommarito.
Stephens' version conflicts with Bommarito's who de-
nied that he made any such remark . At the same time he
denied knowledge of the Union's demand for recognition
at the time of discharge and also denied the discharge was
related to Howard's union activity. As already noted earli-
er herein, I think in the circumstances he knew of the union
demand for recognition when he fired Howard. In support
of Bommarito's denial Respondent offered the testimony
of yardman Bozer to the effect that he did not hear Bom-
marito make such a remark . Although Bozer was in the
yard that day, there is nothing to indicate that he was with-
in hearing of Bommarito on the occasion testified to by
Stephens . Accordingly, Bozer's testimony is valueless to
corrborate Bommarito 's denial.
On the other hand, Stephens ' testimony, as noted above,
stands alone also and, like Bommarito 's, is subject to some
question on grounds of bias. Between the events about
which he testified and the hearing he quit Respondent's
employment under circumstances suggesting unfriendli-
ness toward Respondent . According to Stephens he left be-
cause of money, because he was under subpoena to testify
in this matter and felt that he would be fired if he did not
quit, and because he could not get along with Yeager. He
was asked what his problems were with Yeager and he
testified , "Everything . We just didn't see eye-to-eye on
anything."
During the afternoon of New Year's Eve , a time subse-
quent to Stephens ' resignation , Yeager delivered his pay-
check to his home . According to Yeager , Stephens on that
occasion told him he was going to be the star witness at the
hearing in the present matter and that his testimony would
determine the case . In apparent reference to money prob-
lems between himself and Respondent , Stephens, accord-
ing to Yeager , said that if certain moneys could be paid to
him he could say whatever he wanted to on the stand.
Yeager's testimony continues as follows:
A. I says, Ralph , all I ask you to do is tell the truth.
Q. Did he indicate to you what his testimony may
be?
A. He said that when-when he heard the-this is
the incident he was going to present , that he was
standing on the back of a pick-up truck and he heard
John say do any more of you blank people want-
want to join the union too.
Q Did he tell you that's what in fact happened or
that's what he was going to say happened?
A. That's what he was going to say and that's what
he had heard. That's what he implied to me , that he
had heard this and that he was going to say it.
Stephens did not deny that this conversation with Yeag-
er took place . I find that it did. The conversation suggests
that Stephens might have testified more favorably to Re-
spondent if he had received the money he thought he was
entitled to. But it also indicates that he told Yeager not
only how he was going to testify respecting a remark made
by Bommarito but also that he had heard Bommarito make
the remark . That aspect of the New Year's Eve conversa-
tion indicates that Stephens made a prior statement consis-
tent with his testimony at the hearing.
The credibility choice between Stephens and Bommarito
is difficult . Both had reason to be biased. As noted earlier,
I question Bommarito's forthrightness as to the state of his
knowledge in regard to the Union's demand letter at the
time he discharged Howard. Stephens , on the other hand,
appeared willing to sell his testimony. A further consider-
ation is the fact that he admittedly is hard of hearing yet
purports to have overheard Bommarito make the remark in
question from a distance of 20 feet . Neither Stephens' help-
er nor the driver Ken was called to testify, nor was their
failure to testify explained . Yeager who, according to Ste-
phens, was standing with Bommarito at the time, was not
asked about the matter . In all the circumstances I do not
credit the uncorroborated testimony of Stephens . The Gen-
eral Counsel , having the burden of proof respecting the
alleged remark of Bommarito , which depends entirely on
the uncorroborated and uncredited testimony of Stephens,
has not carried that burden.
STATE ASPHALT COMPANY, INC.
4. Other possible reasons for Howard's discharge
On October 16 Yeager reported to the Michigan Em-
ployment Security Commission that the reasons for
Howard's discharge included not only "continuous misuse
of equipment" but also "coming to work under the influ-
ence of alcoholic beverage . And doing unauthorized
work."
Howard admits that he is a beer drinker known among
his fellow employees as "Six-pack ." His prior employer
Martin testified credibly that he had talked to him about
being drunk on the job. But he was not drunk on the job
during his employment with Respondent . The evidence
shows Howard had experience as a mechanic . On one oc-
casion when Stephens was repairing equipment at night at
a jobsite , Howard , who was not then on duty, showed up
and offered to help. He was drinking beer at the time. The
record does not indicate that Respondent ever repri-
manded Howard about drinking . In the circumstances it
does not appear to have been a reason for his discharge. It
surfaced as a reason only after his discharge and in con-
nection with his claim for unemployment compensation.
At the hearing in the present matter Respondent 's counsel
did not contend that the discharge resulted from a drinking
problem ; the defense contention was that he was dis-
charged for being a careless driver who had frequently
been warned yet persisted in his conduct.
Bommarito testified that an additional reason for his dis-
charging Howard was his unwillingness to have a dissatis-
fied employee who would be trying to get even with the
Company. This contention is based on an incident on Sep-
tember 25, the day before the discharge . On the morning of
September 25, Yeager and Howard exchanged some harsh
words when Howard erroneously dumped a load of stone
in the wrong pile in Respondent 's yard. As a result his
employment was terminated, either by Yeager firing him or
by Howard quitting . I deem it immaterial as to which it
was. In any case , before Howard punched out, Yeager,
who needed a driver that day, reconsidered the situation.
He went to Howard and asked him to return to work.
Howard did and worked the balance of the day.
When Yeager talked with Bommarito the following
morning about Howard he included an account of the
events of September 25 along with the information from
Bozer about driving too fast over the railroad tracks. He
told Bommarito he could not take any more and asked him
to fire Howard. Based on the foregoing I find that the
incident of September 25 and Howard's fast driving were
legitimate reasons on which Respondent could have dis-
charged Howard.
1067
5. Conclusions regarding the motive for discharging
Howard
In agreement with Stephens I am of the view that his
testimony is crucial to this case . If his account were credi-
ble Respondent's union animus would be established and
that together with Respondent's knowledge of union activi-
ty and the timing of the sudden discharge in midday before
the end of the pay period would warrant the finding that
the leading union proponent was discriminated against.
See N.L.R.B. v. Stemun Manufacturing Company, Inc., 423
F.2d 737, 742 (C.A. 6, 1970); N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery
Ward & Co., Inc., 242 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2, 1957), cert.
denied 355 U.S. 829 (1957); Dobbs Houses, 182 NLRB 675,
679, (1970). Bur without credible evidence of employer ani-
mus toward the Union or evidence of other independent
unfair labor practices the case stands as one where an in-
ference that Howard 's union activity motivated his dis-
charge is available but not compelling. And since other
legitimate motives are revealed in the record, a conclusion
that the employer was substantially impelled by unlawful
reasons rather than the available legitimate ones is not war-
ranted . Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc., 194 NLRB 821
(1972); see also P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc., 199 NLRB
927 (1972). I find, therefore, that a preponderance of the
evidence does not establish that Respondent was substan-
tially motivated by a desire to discriminate in discharging
Howard. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging David Howard on September 26,
1974, and thereafter not reinstating him, the Respondent
did not commit unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER4
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
4In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.