Stockham Pipe Fittings Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1949

84 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

'In the Matter- of STOCKHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY and KENNETH
M. FALBNER, AN INDIVIDUAL
Case No. 10-CA-99.-Decided June 2811949,
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 28, 1949, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent has not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter the complainant and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report; the General Counsel filed a supporting
brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the additions noted herein :
1. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the record as a whole fails
to support a finding that Falkner was discriminatorily discharged
within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, we are convinced on
this record that Falkner, as the admitted leader of the local, and
as one of the negotiators and signatories to a valid no-strike agreement
between the Union and Respondent, had an even greater duty than
the rank and file employees to uphold its provisions.' Like the
Trial Examiner, ,we find it inconceivable under all the circumstances
herein presented, that Falkner was an uninformed and innocent
bystander to ' all the events leading, up to the general strike of July 17,
1946, 'or that he played no part, in advocating and planning' the, well
orgaiiized.walk-out involving'approkimately 1,600 workers.2 • „
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel . [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray].
2 Matter of National Electric Products Corp ., 80 N. L. R. B. 995 , and cases cited therein.
S4 N. L. R. B., No. 72.
629
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Nor do we find merit in the General Counsel's contention that the
Respondent has waived any right of discharge by reason of the fact
that Falkner was permitted to work for approximately 7 weeks after
the strike was settled. Certainly under the strike settlement agree-
ment the Respondent had the right to discharge Falkner for his
responsibility in connection with the strike. As found by the Trial
Examiner, his retention after September 13, 1946, when eight other
employees were discharged for strike activities, was due to a credited
understanding between the Union and Respondent to the effect that
Falkner was then seeking other employment, but wished to remain
on the job long enough to process the cases of the eight dischargees
to final arbitration. From the close of the arbitration proceedings
on September 29 to October 16, 1946, when the Respondent questioned
Falkner as to his future plans, and clearly indicated its desire that he
resign or be discharged,' the record, in our opinion, shows' a clear
intent on the part of the Respondent to give Falkner every oppor-
tunity to reestablish himself elsewhere, before termination of his
employment. Thus a grace period of 17 days does not seem to us
unreasonable under the circumstances, especially in view, of the,fact
that the further delay in discharging Falkner was due to an illness
which prevented him from returning on the following day, as agreed,
with his final -decision to resignr or face dismissal.3 ' From the fore-
going, `it is apparent that Respondent not only acted in a reasonable
and timely fashion, but in no way condoned Falkner's' actions in the
premises 4 We shall, therefore; dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
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 or that the complaint against the Re-
spondent, Stockham Pipe Fittings Company, Birmingham, Alabama-,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ,
3 When, on November 6, 1946, Falkner returned to Respondent 's offlce 'and informed the
Company he would not resign, he was immediately discharged.
4 Since we are in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the record fails to show that
•Falkner's conduct regarding his violation of- the rio-strike clause was in any way con-
doned by ' Respondent , we, find . if unnecessary to pass tupon Trial , Ex6minei's -additional
finding based on the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation case ( Matter of, Consolidated Air-
craft Corporation, 74 N: L. R B. 694 ),' that Falkner 's refusal to-take his case to arbitra-
tion pursuant to the provisions of the contract , constitutes a bar to the remedy sought.-
STOCKHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
ANTI
RECOMMENDED ORDER
631
William M. Pate, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Douglas Ararat, Esq., and E. Grant Fitts, Esq., of Birmingham, Alabama, for
the Respondent.
Jerome A. Cooper, Esq, of Birmingham, Alabama, for the Complainant.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on October 27,1947,' by Kenneth M. Falkner, an individual,
herein called the complainant, the General Counsel for the National Labor Re-
lations Board,2 by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued a complaint dated March 30, 1948, against Stockham Pipe
Fittings Company, Birmingham, Alabama, herein called the Respondent, alleg-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
Respondent and the complainant
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that respondent: (a) on October 16, 1946, discharged Kenneth M. Falkner and
thereafter failed and refused to•reinstate him; (b) discharged and failed and
refused to reinstate said Falkner because of his'membership in and 'activities
on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America', C. I. 0, herein called the
Union, and because he engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; (c) dis-
criminated in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of said Falkner in
order to discourage membership in said Union, and thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act, in volation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
In its answer as amended, Respondent admitted the factual allegations of the
complaint regarding the nature of its business operations, but denied the allega-
tions relating to unfair labor practices. It affirmatively averred in substance:
'(1) Falkner had been discharged for instigating and encouraging the employees
to engage in a strike in violation of a no-strike clause in Respondent's contract
with the Union; (2) that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to liti-
gate the allegations of the complaint regarding the discharge and order Falkner
reinstated, because he refused to take his discharge case to arbitration pursuant
to an arbitration clause contained in the said contract; and (3) that the charge
upon which the complaint was based was not timely filed. '
Respondent filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the case on May 11, 1948,
before the opening of the'hearing,for the reason that the charge had not been
timely filed. This motion was referred to Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett for
ruling and the said- Trial Examiner by written order dismissed the motion on May
26, 1948.
i A copy of this charge was duly served upon the Respondent on October 29, 1947.
2 The General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing are referred to
as the General Counsel. The National-Labor'Relations Board Is referred'to'as the Board.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a healing:was held at Birmingham, Alabama, on June 30,
July 1, 2, 20, 21, and 22, 1948, before the,undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly
designated to conduct the hearing by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel, the Respondent, and the complainant were represented by counsel at the
hearing. Full opportunity to belheard,^ to examine' and cross-examine witness,
hnd,to introduce evidence bearing on the issues -was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, Respondent renewed its motion to dismiss the
complaint previously denied, by Trial Examiner Bennett. Final ruling was re-
served by the undersigned. The motion was based upon Trial Examiner Bennett's
denial of Respondent's preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint upon the
ground that under Section 10 (b) of the amended Act, "The complaint could not
issue because the unfair practice which was the basis of the complaint had occur-
red more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and
service of a copy thereof upon the Respondent." The said charge was filed on
October 27,.1947. Service of a copy of this charge upon the Respondent was
made on or about October 29, 1947, and the complaint herein issued on March
30, 1948. The Board has previously held that the limiting language of Section 10
,(b) does not prohibit the issuance of complaints in any case in which the charge
was filed and served before, or within 6 months after August 22, 1947, the effective
date of the amendment to the Act. The Respondent was duly served within this
period with a copy of the charge previously filed with the Board alleging that
Respondent had discriminately discharged Falkner, thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. In view of the above, the ruling heretofore entered by
Trial Examiner Bennett in this case is affirmed!
During the hearing, Respondent was permitted to amend its answer for the
purpose of adducing evidence in support of a further motion to dismiss the com-
plaint for the asserted reason that Falkner had failed to seek a review from
an order of the Regional Director, entered on December 9, 1947, refusing to
issue a complaint on the basis of an earlier charge filed jointly by Falkner and
the Union because the Union had not complied with the requirements of Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act. The Regional Director's order was en-
tered in a case docketed as 10-C-2143, which was initiated by the filing of the said
joint charge.
The record shows that while action in Case No. 10-0-2143 was pending in
the Regional Office, Falkner meanwhile had filed an individual charge on October
27, 1947. This charge was substantially identical in contents with the charge
earlier filed jointly by Falkner and the Union. Following the refusal of the
Regional Director to issue a complaint in Case No. 10-C-2143, he issued a com-
plaint in the instant case (10-CA-99) on March 30, 1948, based upon the individual
charge filed by Falkner. The Respondent admits receiving a copy of this later
charge filed on October 27, 1947, by Falkner, on October 29, 1947. Respondent first
objected to the procedure followed when it filed its present motion to amend and
dismiss the complaint with the undersigned on July 11, 1948, during a recess in the
instant hearing.' Certainly, Respondent was in no way prejudiced by the
procedure followed by the Regional Director, because there had been no litiga-
tion on the merits until this hearing opened on June 30, 1948. The charge upon
which the instant case is based was filed by Kenneth Falkner an individual.
8 See Matter of Vanette Hosiery Mills , 80 N. L . R. B. 1116 ; , Matter, of Itasca Cotton Manu-
facturing Co., 79 N. L. R. B. 1442. '
* No adverse action had been taken by ,the Regional Director. concerning the,individual
charge filed by Falkner.
STOCKITAM :PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY 633
It is immaterial that Falkner is a member of the Union; that the Union may
have desired Falkner to take the action he did, and that the Union might derive
an incidental benefit from a finding that'an unfair labor practice was committed
in the case.' The Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint for the rea-
sons advanced is denied.
At the end of the hearing, a motion concurred in by all counsel to conform the.
pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters was granted.
Oral argument was presented to the undersigned by all parties, which is
included in the record. The parties were granted 15 days time in which to
file briefs with the undersigned. The time to file briefs was thereafter extended
by the Chief Trial Examiner and briefs have been duly received from Counsel
for Respondent and the Complainant.
On August 30, 1948, counsel for Respondent filed a .motion with the under-
signed requesting that numerous corrections be made in the official transcript
of the proceeding. Thereafter on September 7, 1948, the General Counsel by letter
to the undersigned stated that he had no objections to the proposed corrections.
The undersigned has marked Respondent's "Dlotion to Correct the Official Report
of Proceedings" as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1, the'above-mentioned letter
from the General Counsel as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 2, and he has physi-
cally inserted them as formal Exhibits in the case in the Exhibit file. It is
hereby ordered that the official transcript may be considered as corrected in
accordance with the specific corrections requested by Respondent in his said
Motion
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Stockham Pipe Fittings Company is a Delaware corporation. Its principal
executive offices and main plant are maintained at Birmingham, Alabama,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of metal pipe fit-
tings and valves. It maintains branch offices and warehouse, not involved in
this proceeding in the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Texas, and California, and in the District of Columbia. During the year ending
March 1, 1948, which is generally representative of the scope of its business
operations, Respondent purchased raw materials consisting principally of metals
valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 30 percent was pur-
chased outside the State of Alabama and shipped in interstate commerce to its
Birmingham plant. During the same period Respondent sold finished products,
valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 80 percent was sold and
shipped to customers doing business in States other than Alabama.
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION NAMED IN THE CO_IIPLAINT
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
5 N L R B. v. Indiana of Michigan Electric Co., 318 U. S 9, 18.
6 It is noted that the Union was not named as a party in the case, and that it did nat
participate in the hearing.
634 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
m. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Outline of labor relations history at the plant
The Respondent has employed about 1,600 rank-and-file production and main-
tenance employees at its plant for many years.
Insofar as the record shows, the first efforts to organize those employees began
about the middle of 1943, when the Steelworkers initiated an organizing cam-
paign. A consent election was conducted by the Board in the latter part of
1943 which was won by the said Union. At some stage of these proceedings, the
Union established Local 3036 at Birmingham to aid in administering the union
affairs of the employees.
Following the election, the Union and Respondent began bargaining negotia-
tions. Because of their failure to reach an agreement concerning some of the
terms of a proposed contract, a dispute case was carried to the War Labor Board.
Thereafter, pursuant to a directive of order of that Board (served upon the
parties about April 11, 1945) bargaining negotiations were resumed and on
May 9, 1945, the Respondent and the Union entered into a collective bargaining
agreement signed by the Union on behalf of itself and Local 3036. This con-
tract covered all of the Respondents' rank and file production and maintenance
employees. Among other things, it contained a maintenance of membership
proviso, a dues check off clause for its members, a five step grievance procedure,
arbitration and no-strike provisions clauses. The provisions of the agreement
deemed to be particularly material to the issues are :
Section 3
Management
The right to hire, promote, transfer, discharge or discipline for just
cause, and to maintain discipline and efficiency of employees, the deter-
mination of type of products to be manufactured, the location of plants,
the planning and scheduling of production, the methods, processes and
means of manufacturing, are the sole responsibility and prerogative of the
Company, except as otherwise provided in this Contract.
Section II
Procedure for Handling Complaints
A complaint or difference of opinion on any matter concerned with an
employee's work should first be discussed with the employee's foreman. In
case the employee and foreman are unable to reach a satisfactory solution
the employee will take the matter up with the superintendent of the Depart-
ment. Failing a satisfactory solution with the superintendent, the employee
will take the matter up with the Director of Employee Relations. Should
this procedure not result in a settlement of the complaint the employee may
refer the matter to the Union's plant committee outside of working hours.
If the Committee feels that there are grounds for further handling of the
matter, they may discuss it with the Director of Employee Relations. Still
failing a solution, should the Union desire to carry the matter further, it will
be the subject of discussion and negotiation between Company management
and Union management.
STOCKHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY
Section -12
• Arbitration
635
Grievances involving the application or interpretation of the terms of
this agreement' may be submitted by either party to arbitration, however,
any such matter not so submitted within thirty (30) days of the date
when the Union management takes it up with the Company management, may
not be made the subject of arbitration. If within ten days the parties are
unable to agree on the name of the arbitrator, the Senior Federal District
Judge for the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama may
be requested to designate a panel of five men. From this panel the Union
and the Company' will each strike two names. The remaining person will
be the arbitrator. At the conclusion of the' arbitration proceeding the arbi-
trator shall render a decision and his decision shall be final and binding upon
the parties.
The arbitrator shall not have the power to add to or subtract from
or modify any of the terms of this Contract, or any agreement supple-
mental hereto, nor to pass upon any controversy arising from any demand
to increase any wage rate.
The cost of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the Union and the
Company.
Section 16
Lock-Outs and Strikes
The Company agrees that there will be no lock-outs during the life of
this Agreement.
The Union agrees that there will be no strikes of any nature, sit-down
strikes, stoppage or slowdown of work or boycotts of any nature during the
life of this Agreement.
The date of expiration of the contract was December 31, 1946, with a pro-
vision1for automatic yearly extensions, absent the service of a 30-day notice be-
fore any expiration date. Pursuant to a provision to reopen wage negotiations
during the contract term, a wage increase of 181/._ cents an hour was obtained by
the Union in March 1946 for all employees in the unit following the settlement of
the industry-wide strike in the basic steel plants. Respondent's plant was not
involved in that strike.
The Union and the Respondent have continued their contract relations cover-
ing employees in the unit to the present time.'
B. Chronology of other material events
1. The work stoppage in the malleable iron foundry
On or about September 5, 1945, the foreman in this department discharged
an employee assertedly for refusal to obey orders. Soon after the discharge,
on the same day, an undisclosed number of employees in the department quit
working as a protest against the discharge.
A few minutes after the work stoppage started, Charles Breeding, the plant
committee man in the foundry, went to the tool-room to inform Kenneth Falkner,
the complainant herein and the plant committee chairman for Local 3036 what
T There is no disagreement between the parties respecting the above findings.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had transpired, and presumably to get advice from Falkner regarding it. After
discussing the matter with Falkner, Breeding returned to the foundry.
Shortly thereafter, Falkner requested permission from E. M. Niblett, the super-
intendent of employee relations, to go to the foundry and endeavor to get the
men back to work. Niblett was unwilling to permit Falkner to go there alone,
but arranged that Falkner and J. T. Gilbert, Respondent's then general foundry
superintendent, should go there together.
Soon after Falkner and Gilbert arrived at an areaway outside of the foundry
building, Breeding, the foundry committee man, and some of the striking em-
ployees walked out of the foundry building and gathered in a group near Falkner
and Gilbert.
Falkner, in the hearing of this group, asked Gilbert what had transpired in
the department prior to the work stoppage. Gilbert replied that the foreman
had discharged one of the employees for allegedly disobeying orders, whereupon,
Falkner in substance asserted, some your "damn" foremen are too domineer-
ing. Gilbert, after a short interchange of comments between him and Falkner
relative to respective rights and obligations of management and employees, curtly
remarked to Falkner, in substance, you were permitted to come here to assist
in gettting the men back to work, are you going to do so or not? Falkner then
asked Breeding to request the strikers to return to work and to inform them
that the discharge case could be processed as a grievance.' Shortly thereafter the
strikers resumed work.
Later on this day, Falkner was reprimanded by several of the plant officials for
allegedly interfering with matters concerning plant discipline by calling a plant
foreman, a damn, or G- D- foreman in the presence of rank-and-file employees.
The respondent did not otherwise discipline him.
2. The core room strike on July 16, 1946
According to the credible testimony of L. B. Bewley, Respondent's director
of industrial relations, which was not convincingly refuted : the methods pre-
viously followed in making mold cores had been changed some months prior
to May 1946; that .following these method changes, time rates had been restudied
on about 123 core operations performed by five of the core room employees ;
and that following such restudies, new piece rates were set in May 1946, for.
the said operations affected by the changes.
The five employees concerned in the rate change complained that their gross
earnings had been lowered as a result of the changes, and entered grievances
concerning them.
During all conferences or negotiations regarding these core room grievances
held between the alleged, aggrieved employees and their plant committee repre-
sentatives with management during the first four steps of the grievane procedure,
the respondent asserted that under Section 3 of the agreement, which provided,
among other things, "the methods, processes and means of manufacturing are
the sole responsibility and prerogative of the company" together with the pro-
vision in the arbitration clause which provides that "the arbitrator shall not
have the power . . . to pass upon any controversy arising from any demand
In addition to filling the office of chairman of the plant committee Falkner was also
financial secretary of Local 3036. As an officer of the Local, he had participated in the
contract negotiations with Respondent and had also signed the contract, hence was fully
acquainted with the no-strike provision in the contract, but he failed to warn the strikers.
that they were violating it.
STOCKHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY 637
to increase any wage rate" such disputes are not subject to arbitration under the
terms of the agreement.
International representatives of the Union took over the core room grievances
for the fifth step negotiations on or about July 10, 1946.
Negotiations concerning them were still pending when several unidentified
core room employees walked out on strike on July 16 and also on July 17, 1946,
when substantially all of the balance of the production and maintenance em-
ployees walked out on a general strike. At the time, Respondent was checking
off dues for 82 percent of the employees. It has continued to check off dues
to the present time and the monthly percentages of dues checked off thereafter
indicate that there has been no substantial decrease in union membership.
Thereafter, following further negotiations between the Union's representa-
tives and management, it was agreed that when differences concerning piece
rate changes arose which were not settled by interparty negotiations such dif-
ferences may be taken to special arbitration. The machinery set up to handle
such disputes require that the Steelworkers appoint one of its staff time-study
engineers to confer with Respondent 's chief engineer , and, if these two persons
fail to reach agreement they shall mutually agree upon the appointment of a
qualified time-study engineer to arbitrate the dispute, and that his decision
shall be final and binding.'
Shortly after the work stoppage started in the core room, Willie Bogan, the
core room plant committee man for Local 3036, obtained permission from his
foreman to go to Falkner's department for the purpose of enlisting Falkner's aid
in getting the strikers to return to work. Bogan testified without substantial
contradiction, as follows, concerning a conversation held with Falkner at the
time :
Will you [Falkner] come and help me get them back on the job?
Q. What did he say?
A. He said there is nothing I can do. He said, I have been criticized so
much, for those kind of doings, getting fellows back on the job, settling
their grievances and things like that. I can't go. You go back and see your
supervisor and whatever you do is all right."
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went back to the core room, and [Cranford, my supervisor] said, ask
the fellows, are you going back to work? If they are not, to punch out.
Since Bogan was a naive colored man, a fair inference arises that he related
the gist of his conversation with Falkner to Cranford as well as to the strikers,
and that Cranford in turn reported the matter to Respondent's officials, as was
asserted by Respondent. Shortly after Bogan's conversation with Cranford,
Bogan and the strikers left the plant without punching out on the time clock
and did not report for work on the next morning. The record fails to disclose
the identity, (except for Bogan) or number, of strikers involved in this strike.
I assume, however, that it only included those concerned in the piece rate
grievances.
OR is clear from all the above that Respondent 's insistence that such disputes should
be decided by an arbitrator with special qualifications was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
30 Falkner ' s version of his conversation with Bogan regarding this incident does not vary
materially from that of Bogan's. Falkner, although an officer of Local 3036 , failed to warn
Bogan that the core room grievances had been taken over for further negotiation by inter-
national representatives , or that the strike was a violation of the contract.
853396-50-vol 84-44
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The strike vote on the night of July 16 ; the general walk out on July 17, 1946.
In tlie,latter part of the afternoon of July 16, following the walk-out in the
core room department, Falkner notified all of the officers, the, committee men,
and sub-committee men of. Local 3036 to attend a special meeting at the C. I. O.
hall in Birmingham, Alabama, at 7 o'clock on that same night.
From 20 to 25 of them, including Falkner and Ralph Richards, the president
of Local 3036, attended it. Falkner, and Richards sat on two chairs at the
officers table facing the audience, during the early part of the meeting.
Falkner asserts that his sole purpose for calling the meeting was to acquaint
the officers staff and plant committee men of Local 3036 with the current status
of the core room grievances. He said he had made a previous engagement, for
this same night, to take care of a personal business matter and for this reason
had to leave the meeting after making a short opening address.
According to Falkner, he opened the meeting and told the group that he and
the special negotiating committee who had dealt with management regarding
the core room grievances had exerted their best efforts to reach a favorable
settlement, but had been unsuccessful ; that international representatives of the
Union had taken over the said grievances; that he believed many of the plant
employees were angry because those grievances had not been satisfactorily
settled ; and that while he realized the committee men could not engage in
matters of union concern on company time, because the contract prohibited it,
he told them that if all of the committee men failed to avail themselves of every
permissible opportunity to pacify and "calm down" the employees a strike was
inevitable. Falkner said that he then left the hall to keep his other appointment,
but returned there about 2 hours later when the men were leaving to pick up
Paul Loftis, another committeeman, and drive Loftis to the latter's home in
Falkner's automobile. He offered no explanation at the hearing for not post-
poning his alleged prior engagement.
Jules Jennings, a witness called by the General Counsel testified : shortly after
Falkner had delivered his speech and left the meeting, some unidentified person,
or persons present there, proposed that they'strike the plant ; that Richards, who
had been sitting beside Falkner at the officers table when the meeting opened,
stated, in substance, whatever you men wish to do, will be satisfactory to me ;
and that a vote was then taken and unanimously passed to strike the plant at
9: 30 o'clock on the next morning.
Fa]kner asserts, and his assertions are not credited, that during the automo-
bile ride with Loftis to the latter's home, after the meeting, neither lie nor Loftis
engaged in any conversation regarding what had transpired at the meeting after
Falkner, had left; and further asserts that he first learned of an impending
strike at 9: 30 o'clock on the next morning when a fellow employee in his depart-
ment told him that the employees in the next department were walking out. On
the other hand, Joseph Izzie, a witness called by the Respondent testified: he
had been employed for about 3 years at the plant as a machinist ; that he had
joined the Steelworkers and had been appointed steward in his department by
Falkner; that about 2 weeks before the strike he observed Falkner, Paul
Loftis and several other employees (whose names he did not know) gathered
together in a group outside the plant, that he walked up to the group and asked
Falkner what was brewing; that Falkner then -told Izzie, in the hearing of
Loftis and the others present, that Respondent' had already cut the wages of 125
employees ; that Respondent's, vice president, Richard 'Stockham and its per-
sonnel director, Luther Bewley had informed Falkner that Respondent planned
"STOCBHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY 639
to cut the hourly, wages of all other employees 10 cents an hour ; " that Falkner
then .stated to. Izzie, "well, I can tell .you [a strike] is coming and I am now
appointing you picket marshal to be ready for the strike." In addition, Izzie
also testified without denial: Paul Richards, the president of Local 3036, came
to him before work commenced in the morning of July 17 and told him'a strike
vote had been passed at a meeting held on the previous night to strike the plant
at 9: 30 o'clock on that morning ; that Richards then instructed Izzie to tell the
employees in the machine shop to walk out at the time set ; that Izzie did so
and walked out with them ; that pursuant to Falkner's earlier instructions he
also engaged in picket duty during the strike ; and that thereafter he was dis
charged for the asserted reason that he was a leading participant in the strike.
Izzie is -now working elsewhere. "Neither Loftis nor Richards were "called, to
testify, therefore the only contradiction to Izzie's above testimony is Falkner's
denial that he ever engaged in such a conversation with Izzie. Basing my opinion
upon my observation of Falkner and Izzie, together with a realistic consideration
of all the evidence, I conclude that Izzie was a more trustworthy witness than
Falkner. I accept Izzie's version of the above-purported conversation with Falk-
ner as credible and true. Ordinarily, about 1,600 men do not concertedly walk
out on strike at a given hour without advance planning and preparation.
At 9: 30 o'clock on the morning of July 17, 1946, Falkner and substantially all
of the production and maintenance employees walked out. Despite Falkner's
assertion that he was unaware that the plant was to be struck on this morning, he
admits, when he was informed by a fellow employee at 9: 80 o'clock that employees
in another department were walking out, he stopped his machine, locked his tools
up in his tool box, changed his clothes, punched out on the time clock-and then
left the plant.
Following the strike, the plant rejnained closed until September 11, 1946. The
Respondent and Union availed themselves of the services of United States Com-
missioner of Conciliation Finch to assist in settling the strike. On or about
September 8, 1946, the Respondent submitted a proposal in writing containing the
grounds on which it agreed to settle the strike and the Union accepted it.
The strike settlement agreement provided, among other things :
The Company will reopen the plant, restoring all men, including Henry
Johnson,'2 to the jobs they held on July 16, 1946, reserving to itself all of its
rights under Section 3 of the Agreement between the parties in the case of
any worker found by the Company to have had any responsibility in con-
nection with the strikes of July 16 and 17. [Emphasis supplied.]
Pursuant to the above agreement, the strikers returned to work on September
11, 1946, Paul Richards, the president of Local 3036, voluntarily quit on September
12, or 13, 1946, after collecting his vacation pay for the year of 1946.
4. The discharge of Falkner and other employees
Falhner began his employment with the Respondent about 13 years ago.
Since that time he had been regularly employed as a tool and die maker until
n Other than in the within testimony of Izzie, the record does not contain a further
mention of such wage cuts . Izzie in his testimony said he later learned that Falkner's
statements concerning them were false.
12 The record is not clear regarding Johnson's case, but seems to show that Johnson had
been transferred to another job in the plant some weeks prior to the strike, and that he
was working at the time the strike began. .
640 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his discharge on November 6, 1946. Respondent makes no contention that he
was an incompetent employee and the record indicates that he was a highly
skilled and competent tool maker.
When the Union started its organizing campaign in the summer of 1943,
•Falkner was appointed chairman of the plant organizing committee. Following
the designation of the Union as majority representation at the consent election,
he was elected financial secretary of Local 3036 and at or about the same time
he was also appointed chairman of the plant committee. He continued to hold
both of these positions in the union organization until his discharge. In his
• capacity as an officer of Local 3036, he participated in the negotiations of the
contract signed on May 9, 1945, and was one of the signers thereof. In addition,
the record shows that he vigorously pressed the negotiations of all grievances
brought to his attention as chairman of the plant committee.
Insofar as the record shows Falkner had never been disciplined or allegedly
discriminated against for his union activities before the general strike at the
plant started on July 17, 1946.
The following incidents , not previously mentioned, are presently set forth,
because to some extent they tend to support the Respondent's assertion that
Falkner was discharged for the basic reason that it believed him to be a leader
in the strike activities.
E. M. Niblett, a witness called by the Respondent, credibly testified without
denial : he is an assistant to Respondent's vice president, Richard Stockham ;
that at a meeting held between management representatives with Falkner and
other members of the plant committee, as representatives of the union, during
the latter part of 1945, Falkner asserted "we are organized to the point where I
can shut the plant down any time I want to in seven minutes."
Vice-President Stockham, a witness called by Respondent, credibly testified,
without substantial denial, that during the time Falkner was pressing the core
room grievances in June or early July 1946, Falkner told Stockham there was
going to be a strike at the plant and that he, Falkner, would do nothing to pre-
vent it.
E. M. Marcellus, Respondent's labor relation consultant testified that during
the strike he advised the Respondent that since Falkner was an official of the
Union, Falkner had a special responsibility to comply with the provisions of the
no-strike clause which Falkner had helped negotiate, that Falkner was not
privileged to engage in a strike in violation of the agreement, and that he advised
Respondent to discharge Falkner because of the latter's strike activities.
Falkner admitted Marcellus had asserted that Respondent believed Falkner
was responsible for the plant shut-down during one of the strike settlement
negotiations held with Conciliation Commissioner Finch in September 1946. As
appears above, the agreement approved by the Union provided that all strikers
could return to work on September 11, subject to a reservation that Respondent
could later discharge those responsible for instigating the strike after making a
further investigation.
Falkner also testified that Richards, the president of Local 3036, informed
Falkner during the lunch hour on September 13, that Respondent had discharged
two of the union members assertedly because they had been leaders in the strike
activities, that about an hour later Falkner learned that two other men had been
discharged for the same alleged reason, and that he then went to Personnel
STOCKHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY 641
Director Bewley to discuss the matter with Bewley. His testimony,concerning
-conversation with Bewley regarding it is as follows :
Q. What conversation did you have with Mr. Bewley?
A. I asked him why he was firing our people, and he said because they
led the strike, and I asked him is that all you are going to fire for [that
reason] have you finished? and he said, "well, why next we start'on the
higher union officials."
Richards, the president of Local 3036, voluntarily quit later on this same day
after drawing his vacation pay for the year 1946.
Also, on this same day, Field Representative Poarch of the Union called Re-
spondent's vice president, Richard Stockham, on the telephone. According to
Stockham's credible and undenied testimony, Poarch told Stockham that Falkner
-was presently seeking another job, because he had decided to quit his job with
Respondent, but wanted to remain on the job until the cases of the employees
discharged on that day were disposed of at an arbitration hearing. Stockham
testified that on this occasion he told Poarch that the Respondent had already
decided to discharge Falkner18 Respondent credibly asserts as a result of this
and other information it had received regarding Falkner's intention to quit, it
decided to defer Falkner's discharge until after the arbitration cases were
-disposed of.
Eight employees were discharged on September 13, 1946,14 assertedly because
of their leadership in the strike activities. All cases were taken to arbitration.
An arbitration hearing concerning them was held on September 28 and 29, 1946.
The grievances of three of them were sustained and they were reinstated, but the
grievances regarding the other five were disallowed. There are no allegations in
the complaint regarding these discharge cases, and the matters therein involved
were not litigated in the instant case. '
Thereafter, on or about October 14, 1946, Vice-President Stockham and Per-
sonnel Director Bewley met with District Director Farr of the Union for a gen-
eral discussion concerning the handling of grievances. During the meeting
according to the credible and undenied testimony of Stockham and Bewley, Farr
told them Falkner had informed Farr during the preceding week that Falkner
was contemplating taking a job at Knoxville, Tennessee.'
Falkner asserted at the hearing that he had never told any other person that
he intended to quit his job at Respondent's plant, but the undersigned does not
-credit his assertion. It seems unlikely that Poarch and Farr would have made
the statements attributed to them by the Respondent's witnesses unless Falkner
had told Poarch and Farr that he was going to quit. In addition, as appears
below, Falkner admits he had been seeking other employment before Respondent
discharged him.
On October 16, 1946, Respondent's factory manager, L. N. Shannon, called
Falkner into his office. Falkner's version of the conversation carried on between
them is briefly covered by the following excerpts from Falkner's testimony :
I [Shannon] have been hearing a lot of wild rumors all over the plant
about you going to leave here. . . and he said, I want to button it up
13 Poarch gave no testimony at the hearing.
14 The names of these eight employees are Joseph Izzie, Willie Bogan, Jules Jennings,
Will Jones, James Walker, Thomas Smith, Ed Hollingsworth, and Willie Gay.-
15 Farr gave no testimony at the hearing. -
642 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
today and said I want you to leave here-I am prepared-to keep you going
and help you when you leave us until. you become located,. and then -he
asked me to resign.
I replied, well, I have been dickering fora job, Mr.-Shannon, but I haven't
got it yet and won't know for several days whether or not I am going to
getit....
I said , my wife is in Tennessee ever since we had that strike, and I
would not like to move from Alabama [to another State] without talking
with her. . . . and he said, hell, go on up and talk it, over with her. I will
pay your way. . . . I said-I appreciate your offer, but I don't feel like
resigning with you pushing me. . . . I said, I can't [make up my mind now]
I will need a little time. He said, now listen after all if it had not been
for the fact we knew you were going to leave here, you would have been
included in the group who went to arbitration. . .
Then, he told me again he did not want me in the plant anymore-but
to Call him about 11 o'clock [on the following morning].
Shannon's version of this conversation differs from the above version given
by Falkner to the extent at least of asserting reasons for terminating Falkner.
He credibly asserts, in substance, that he accused Falkner of violating the no-
strike clause in the Union's contract and from failing to attempt to prevent the
rank and file union members from violating it, that Respondent believed Falkner
was responsible for the strike, because it had been informed Falkner failed to
advise Willie Bogan that the work stoppage in the core room was a violation of
the contract and also told Bogan at the time, that he, Falkner, did not care
what the core room employees decided to do, that he then told Falkner the
latter would have been discharged with those eight employees discharged on Sep-
tember 13, had Respondent not been informed that Falkner was currently looking
for another job and intended to quit after the arbitration cases of the other
8 employees was disposed of ; and that he then told Falkner he, Shannon,
thought it would be to the best interests of Falkner, the Union, and Respondent
if Falkner would resign rather than be discharged.. Shannon further testified
that when Falkner requested additional time before making a final decision
concerning the matter Shannon granted it,-but, at the time made it clear that
a termination, either voluntary or involuntary was inevitable.
Falkner asserts that shortly after the above meeting with Shannon, lie suffered
from an attack of bronchitis and was confined to his hone for about 2 weeks.
He returned to Shannon's office on the afternoon of November - 6, 1946, and
informed Shannon that he would not quit voluntarily. According to Falkner,
and his testimony on this point is not denied, Shannon again requested Falkner
to resign and offered to advance him a month's wages if he would do so, and
when Falkner refused to resign, Shannon remarked, "he was sorry that he
was not salesman enough to sell me a bill of goods, that he had hoped he could,
and said if that's the way you want it, you can just consider your grievance
ready for arbitration. On that same, or the following day, Falkner was handed
a release slip dated November 6, 1947, stating as a reason for the discharge,
"Discharged for misconduct connected with his work."
Falkner filed a grievance which was disallowed by the Respondent. Thereafter,
he refused to take his case to arbitration pursuant to the provisions in the
contract 1e
1e'Bewley credibly , testified without denial that at the time of the arbitration decision
affecting the eight employees discharged Falkner stated, "I am through with arbitration."
STOCKHAM PIPE, FITTINGS COMPANY 643,
C. Conclusions
Except for the allegation in the complaint that the discharge of Falkner was
discriminatory there are no other allegations of unfair labor practices by Re-
spondent . Nor is there any history of past unfair labor practices by the Respond-
ent. Insofar as the record shows the Union and Respondent have enjoyed excel-
lent contract relations up to the present time.
The General Counsel and counsel for Falkner, in effect, contend: (1) Falkner
was discriminatorily discharged because of his leadership in 'all union' activities
and for the persistent and aggressive manner in which he carried out his duties
as a union officer; (2) that the defense interposed by Respondent, namely, that
Falkner was discharged because of his leadership and participation in the strike
in violation of the no-strike clause in the contract was merely a pretext advanced
to cover up the real reason for his discharge ; and (3 ) in any event , Respondent's
defense falls , because Falkner's discharge was not timely.
Regarding .the first contention above, the undersigned finds if lacks merit.
It is true that Falkner was the outstanding leader in all union activities , for the
record shows he was chairman of the organizing committee during the drive to
organize the plant in the summer of 1943, and that after the Union was designated
as majority representative he became financial secretary of Local 3036 and chair-
man of the plant committee . It is likewise true that as chairman of the plant
comuiitee he persistently and aggrssively advanced the cause of the Union and
concerted activities among the employees as contended above. But, it is also true
that these activities were carried on for about 3 years before the July 1946 strike:
Insofar as the record shows Falkner or no other employee was subjected to
reprisals or other purported discriminatory treatment because of these activities
during the 3-year period preceding the July 17, 1946, strike. Moreover , it conclu-
sively appears that Respondent has enjoyed excellent contract 'relatiohs with the
Union for several years , and that these relations have continued to the present
time, despite the fact that the Union allegedly has not complied with the require-
ment of Section (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
In respect to the second contention above urged by the General Counsel and
Complainant, the undersigned also finds it lacks substantial merit.
Nothing in the record creates a reasonable doubt in my mind that there existed
probable cause for the Respondent to believe Falkner, in substantial part, was
guilty of encouraging the employees to engage in strike activities in violation of
the no-strike clause in the contract. For instance, although Falkner helped
to negotiate the contract and was one of the signers thereto, he. walked out on
strike with the other employees on the morning of July 17, 1946, although he knew
that Respondent had not breached the contract. In addition , the record shows
that he told Niblett, one of Respondent's officers, about 6 months before the strike,
that the employees were so well organized ,. "I can shut the plant down any time
I want to," that about 3 weeks before the strike, he also told Vice-President
Stockham , he, Falkner, expected a strike; but would make no effort to avert it ;
and that Respondent credited a report received from one of Bogan's supervisors
to the effect that on the morning of July 16, 1946, during the work stoppage in the
core room department , Falkner told Bogan when the latter went to Falkner to
seek advice concerning ending the work stoppage , he, Falkner told Bogan that
Falkner did not care how the dispute was disposed of.
Though there appears to-,have been a studied effort on the part- of Falkner
to avoid participating in the general discussion concerning strike action engaged
in at the meeting called by Falkner-on the 'night before the-general -strike'which
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
began on the morning of July 17, 1946, a 'realistic consideration of all the evi-
dence impels a conclusion that Falkner called this meeting for the express pur-
pose of lining up additional support for` the impending' strike. Two weeks
earlier Falkner told Joseph Izzie, another plant committee member, that a
strike was then brewing. At the same time, he also appointed Izzie to serve
as marshall on the strike picket line. Although Falkner was solely responsible
for calling this meeting, he offered no explanation at the hearing for not post-
poning an alleged previous engagement made by Falkner for the same night the
meeting was held. After making a brief andrather innocuous opening state-
ment, Falkner left the hall and did not return until the meeting was breaking up.
Falkner admits that when he returned to the hall, he invited Paul Loftis to
ride to the latters home in Falkner 's automobile . Falkner asserts, and his
unsupported assertion is deemed incredible, that neither he nor Loftin engaged
in any conversation pertaining to what transpired at the meeting during Falk-
ner's absence.
Although several of the Respondent' s witnesses credibly testified that rumors
of a strike were rampant throughout the plant on the morning of July 17, 1946,
from the time it opened at 8 o'clock on that morning, Falkner denies that he
knew the plant was going to be struck until 9:30 o'clock on that morning when a
fellow employee told Falkner that employees in the next department were walk-
ing out. With this asserted scanty knowledge, Falkner admits that he joined
the walk-out despite the fact that he had helped, negotiate and thereafter
signed a contract containing a valid no-strike clause. Sixteen hundred employees
working in scattered departments of a large plant do not ordinarily walk out con-
certedly at a set hour, absent advance planning and preparation for a strike.
In view of all the evidence, the Respondent's belief that Falkner was, at least,
one of the instigators of the strike was not unreasonable.
The right of discharge for violation of a no-strike clause in a contract is
well established IT
However, the General Counsel contends that Respondent waived any right of
discharge it may have had by reason of the fact that Falkner was permitted to
work for about 7 weeks after the strike was settled:
In support of his contention, the General Counsel cited the Carey Salt Company
case 18 in his argument before the undersigned. 'In that case the Board found :
That it was clearly intended and understood by the parties participating
in the settlement negotiations that all the striking employees would be
"returned to work" is established by the uncontroverted testimony, and held
that the refusal to reemploy the, purported leader of the strikers was
discriminatory.
The settlement agreement in the instant case differs materially from that made
in the Carey Salt Company case above cited, for it provides as follows :
The company will reopen the plant, restoring all men, including Henry
Johnson, to the jobs they held on July 16, 1946, reserving to itself all of its
rights under Section 8 of the Agreement between the parties in the case
of any worker found by the Company to have had any, responsibility in con-
nection with the strikes of July 16 and 17. [Emphasis supplied.]
'I N L. R. B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U. S. 332 ; Matter of'Fafnlr Bearing Company, 73
N. L. R. B . 1008; Matter ,of Joseph Dyson t Sons; Inc.,172 N. L. R. B . 445; and Matter
of Scullin Steel Company , 65 N. L . R. B. 1294 ; Matter,of National Electric Products.Corps.,
80 N. L. R. B. 995.
se In the Matter of Carey Salt Co., 70 N. L. R. B. 92.
( '_ . STOCKHAM PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY 645
Accordingly the Respondent with the consent of the Union was privileged
to defer discharges pending further investigation of the strike activities in the
instant case and discharges made pursuant to the agreement are valid.10
As previously found in the findings of fact, above, the strikers returned to work
on September 11, 1946 After Respondent notified the Union, on September 13,
that it was going to discharge Falkner and eight other members because of their
strike activities, Field Representative Poarch of the Union informed Respondent
that Falkner *as then seeking another job, and that he intended to resign from
his job with the Respondent as soon as the cases of the eight other dischargees
were disposed of by arbitration.
Respondent,'in effect, credibly asserts that it regarded Poarch's representation
regarding Falkner' s case as a request from the Union to defer taking immediate
action in Falkner' s case and that acting upon this representation by the Union
it did so. This explanation in the opinion of the undersigned is reasonable and
is,accepted as credible.
Certainly Falkner was not prejudiced by the delay. The record fails to show
that Falkner's conduct regarding his violation of the no strike was in any
respect condoned by Respondent. Under the circumstances of this case it would
not effectuate the purposes of the Act to order Falkner's reinstatement.
On the record made, the undersigned, concludes and finds that the General
Counsel and the complainant have failed to show by a preponderance of evidence
that Falkner was discriminatorily discharged within the meaning of the Act.
As further defense, Respondent contends that Falkner's refusal to take his
case to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of the contract, as set forth above,
constitutes a bar to the remedy sought.
In view of the Board's decision in the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, case 20
the ndersigned deems the defense has merit.
In' the- above cited 1 case the Board, among other things, held that while the
existence of.a_collective bargaining contract, between the, parties involved in a
pi oceeding brought under the Act does not preclude the Board from, finding that
unfair labor practices exist and issuing an appropriate order to prevent them,
it'further holds:
We are of,the opinion, however, that it will not effectuate the statutory
policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"
for the Board to assume the roll of policing collective contracts ,by attempt-
ing i to decide :whether disputes as to the meaning and administration of
such'contracts constitute unfair labor-practices under the Act. -
In that case, the Board dismissed the allegations of discrimination in respect
to two employees, because they failed to take their cases to arbitration pur-
suant to the provisions of the agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
20 In the Matter of°Oopperweld Steel -Company, 75 N. L. R B 188.
20 In the Matter of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, 47 N. L. R. B. 694, 706-7.
646 DECISIONS OF,-NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor' practices within the
meaning of Section-8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS ,
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the com-
plaint against the Respondent, Stockhiam Pipe Fittings Company, Birmingham,
Alabama, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and' Regulations, file
with the Board, Rochambeau Building," Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rul-
ings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original
and six copies of a brief in support thereof; and any party may,'within the
same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Inter-
mediate Report. Immediately upon the' filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of
the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by pre-
cise citation the portions` of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed
or mimeographed, and if mimeographed, shall be double spaced. Proof of serv-
ice on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be' promptly
made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to'the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid.
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclu.
sions, , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes. ' ' .
Dated,at Washington, D. C., this 28th day of February 1949.
HENRY J. KENT.
Trial Examiner.
i