Tex-Togs, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tex-Togs, Inc. and Teresa Perez
Tex-Togs, Inc. and Esperanza A. Minjarez. Cases Nos. 33-CA-
303 and 33-CA-3044. May 31,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 7, 1955, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer 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 recommencing 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 Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby aflirnied. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record
in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification:
In agreement with the Trial Examiner, and for reasons set forth n1
the Intermediate Report, we find that the Respondent on November
16, 1954, discharged Teresa Perez and Esperanza A. Minjarez because
of their concerted activities, and that this conduct was in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, we find it unnecessary
to decide whether or not this conduct was also in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, because the remedy necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act is identical in either case.' We shall, therefore,
dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that the above acts con-
stituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tex-Togs, Inc., El Paso,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees
for engaging in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form or join labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
I SonIAern Orygen Company , Inc . 107 NLRB 894
112 NLRB No 126.
TEX-TOGS, INC. 969
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or 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 organ-
ization 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) Offer to Teresa Perez and Esperanza M. Minjarez immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(b) Make whole the aforesaid two employees for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy" in the Intermediate Report herein.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records
necessary to determine the amounts of back pay due.
(d) Post at its plant at El Paso, Texas, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent or its representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive clays thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) clays from the date of. this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the Respondent's conduct constituted an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
R In the event that this 01 (lei is enforced by a deciee of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shrill be substituted for the Nxords "Pu,suant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pur scant to a Deer ee of the tinned States Cow t of Appeals, Enfor ring an Or der "
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 :
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against our
employees for engaging in concerted activities for mutual aid
and protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any 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 aid or protec-
tion, 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 employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent po-
sitions -without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Teresa Perez
Esperanza A. Minjarez
All our employes are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization.
TES-Toes, IN c.,
Employer.
Dated- --------------- By-------------------------------------
(Repiesentative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays 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
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat 136, herein called the Act, was heard before a duly desig-
nated Trial Examiner at El Paso, Texas, on February 3, 1955, pursuant to due notice
to all parties. All parties were represented at the hearing, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, to introduce
evidence relevant and material to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to
file briefs and proposed findings. The Respondent and the General Counsel engaged
in oral argument but waived the filing of briefs.
The complaint, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, the latter called herein the Board, alleged in substance that Tex-Togs, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent, on November 16, 1954, discharged its employees
Teresa Perez and Esperanza A. Minjarez because they engaged in concerted activi-
ties within the meaning of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
of the Act. In its duly filed answer the Respondent denied the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
TEX-TOGS, INC.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
971
Respondent is a Texas corporation with its principal office and place of business in
El Paso, Texas , where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of
children 's clothing . During the 12-month period ending December 15 , 1954, a
iepresentative period, it manufactured , sold, and shipped to customers outside the
State of Texas finished products consisting principally of children's clothing , valued
in excess of $800,000 . The jurisdiction of the Board is conceded.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
There is no labor organization, as such, involved in this proceeding.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The issues
It is alleged that on November 16, 1954, the Respondent discharged its employees
Teresa Perez and Esperanza Minjarez because of their concerted activity. The Re-
spondent's defense is twofold namely, the said employees were not engaged in con-
certed activity within the meaning of the Act at the time their employment was termi-
nated; they were not discharged but quit.
B. The testimony
As of November 16, Perez had been in Respondent's employ for some 5 years;
Minjarez only a few months Both were employed as finalists, or final inspectors, in
Respondent's sewing department Including them, there were 5 full-time finalists and
1 part-time finalist employed in this department on the date their employment was
terminated. All were paid on an hourly basis. For a time, however, and up to about
September 18, 1954, there had been an incentive plan of pay, on a piecework basis,
whereby it was possible for the employees to exceed the guaranteed minimum wage r
Prior to November 16, there had been discussions among certain of the finalists as to
the desirability of returning to a piecework basis or, in the alternative, of requesting
a wage increase These discussions appear to have been of an informal character and
as of November 16 1 think no concerted plan of action had been agreed upon by the
finalists as a group
On that date Perez, through Ernestina Barrientas, a clerk in the factory office, re-
quested permission for the finalists to see Respondent's general manager, J C.
Ingram, in the latter's office That the request was not limited to individual finalists
but included the group as a whole is established by affidavits given by Ingram and
Supervisor Lydia Mendez prior to the hearing-that of the former to the effect
that Barrientas informed him that the finalists wanted to see him in his office, and of
the latter to the effect that Ingram through Barrientas instructed her to bring to his
office all the finalists who wanted to talk to him-and the fact that admittedly Mendez
went to each of the finalists and inquired of each if she wished to see Ingram in his
office. Actually only Perez, who had made the request, and Minjarez saw Ingram
in his office Mendez was present during most of the conversation which ensued
There is a conflict in the testimony as to What was actually said by Perez and Min-
jarez in Ingram's office and that conflict is crucial in a determination of the issue of
whether these employees were discharged or quit. The testimony is in agreement that
of the two employees Minjarez did most or all of the talking. The substance of Perez'
and Minjarez' testimony is that Minjarez requested that the finalists be put back on
a piecework basis of pay or, in the alternative, that they be given a wage increase, and
advanced as a reason for this consideration, that the finalists were handling a larger
volume of work per capita than previously Minjarez also requested paid vacations
either for the finalists as a group or for Perez individually, the latter having been in
Respondent's employ for several years According to these witnesses, Ingram
replied that neither he nor other officers of the Respondent had paid vacations and that
if Perez and Minjarez were not satisfied with the job as it then was they could quit
Minjarez testified that she replied that they were just "asking questions" but that
Ingram became angry and instructed Mendez to punch out their timecards and
'.Actually, aecoi ding to Respondent' s u'coids the employees in question failed for the
most pait to earn , on a piecework basis, the guaianteed minimum wage required by law
However, under the incentive plan, the potentiality of exceeding the guaranteed minimum
was there and occasionally was realized
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make out their quit slips. Perez and Minjarez then left Ingram's office and went back
to their worktables. According to Minjarez they were in Ingram's office some 20 to
30 minutes.
Ingram testified that the conversation in his office lasted only some 5 minutes
According to him, Minjarez said, "Mr. Ingram, we want more money and paid
vacations or we are going to quit " He replied that no one had paid vacations, that
the Respondent could not pay for vacations and would not, and they might as well quit
then. Respondent's supervisor, Mendez, testified that Minjarez said, "We should go
back on piecework and get our vacations paid or we quit," and that Ingram replied,
"Well, you can quit because I have been here for two years and still haven't had a
vacation." According to her, Ingram then got up from his chair and walked out and
she followed.
There is further conflict in the testimony as to what happened following the inci-
dent in Ingram's office. According to Perez and Minjarez, they returned to their work-
table and had started back to work when Ingram came by and instructed them to punch
out their cards and leave. Ingram was unable to recall whether he spoke to them at
their worktable after they had left his office Jessie Macias, their forelady, testified
that after they had returned from Ingram's office she attempted to give them a bundle
of shirts for final inspection but they refused to take it saying they had quit Their
testimony is that they told Macias they had been discharged. Perez testified that when
she told Macias that Ingram had fired her, Macias suggested that they not leave until
she talked to Ingram, to which she, Perez, replied, "I am very grateful to you but I
don't think there is anything more to do here. He fired us " Minjarez also testified
that upon being informed that Ingram had discharged them, Macias said, "Don't go.
Maybe I can help you. Maybe he will change his mind Wait here a few minutes "
Then Mendez came up to the table and sent Macias back to her own work station.
Macias admitted that she suggested that they inform Mendez that they were leav-
ing so that she could "go and talk to Mr. Ingram" whereupon, according to Macias,
Perez said, "No, we are quitting. We are through." Supervisor Mendez testified that
she saw Macias talking to the two employees at their worktable and instructed her
to get back to her own production line but controverted the further testimony of
Perez and Minjarez to the effect that she told Macias that if she did not get back to
her work she, too, would be fired Mendez testified that she then left the two em-
ployees at their worktable and did not see them leave. She did not recall seeing
Ingram speak to the girls after they left his office but testified with respect to this,
"I am not sure to tell you the truth but I don't think I did."
When Perez and Minjarez prepared to leave the plant they found that their time-
cards had already been punched out. They received their paychecks from Ingram
As they left the plant they passed by the shipping department where an employee,
Hermelinda Prieto, called out to them to ask where they were going. According to
Prieto, Perez replied that they had quit Thomas McClendon, manager of the de-
partment, who was present with Prieto, testified that he asked the latter what Perez
had said and was told by Prieto that Perez had said they were quitting Perez, on re-
buttal, denied this and testified that she replied to Prieto, in Spanish, "The Old Man
fired us "
There is the further testimony of Minjarez, denied by Mendez, that just prior to
the interview in Ingram's office, Mendez inquired of the finalists individually if they
wanted to see Ingram and told them, "for this you are all going to get fired."
C. Analysis'and conclusions
1. With respect to concerted activities
The finalists other than Perez and Minjarez denied that they had authorized the
latter to represent them in conference with Ingram Those who testified, with the
exception of a part-time finalist with whom admittedly Perez and Minlarez had not
conferred in the matter, admitted, however, that there had been conversations about
seeing Ingram in the matter of returning to a piecework or incentive plan of pay, and
I am convinced that Perez and Minjarez had reasonable grounds for believing that
they would have support among the finalists in going to Ingram with their proposals.
Obviously, Perez would not have requested permission for the finalists as a group
to see Ingram had she not had reason for believing that others besides herself and
Minjarez were interested. In short, there is nothing in the testimony of these finalists
who testified for the Respondent which affects, adversely, the credibility of either
Perez or Minjarez, and otherwise it is of no substantial significance When the show-
down came on the morning of November 16, only Perez and Minjarez went to
Ingram's office, and while it appears that in her talk with Ingram Minjarez was pro-
posing a change in the wage structure for the entire group of finalists and not for her-
TEX-TOGS, INC. 973
self alone and that Ingram would reasonably have understood that her proposal em-
braced the entire group, it is not found that she was authorized by the group as a
whole to speak as she did in their behalf, or that she necessarily represented their
views in the matter. What is clear, and beyond question, is that she and Perez acted
together-i. e., in concert-in their interview with Ingiam and that Minjarez was the
spokesman for both It is immaterial that they had no authorization from the group
as a whole or from anyone in the group except themselves, or that the objectives they
sought in seeing Ingram were not identical, Perez, an old employee, being primarily
interested in a paid vacation, and Minjarez, a comparatively new employee, in higher
wages. Two as well as a dozen or a thousand can act in concert for their mutual aid
and protection and a diversity of objectives which contains no conflict of interests can-
not operate to vitiate the concerted nature of the undertaking. A presentation by
2 or more persons of a grievance affecting only 1 is concerted activity within the
meaning of the Act Accordingly, it is found that Perez and Minjarez were engaged
in concerted activities on the occasion in question
2. A discharge or a quitting?
Both Perez and Minjarez denied that Minjarez in advancing her proposals to
Ingram stated that if their demands were not met they would quit, and were not
shaken in these denials on cross-examination. Respondent argues that inasmuch as
Ingram admittedly made the retort that if they did not like the job as it then was they
could quit, Minjarez must have broached the matter of quitting when she advanced
her proposals I do not agree When employees make demands of an employer
which he finds distasteful or unreasonable, nothing is more natural and commonplace
than for him to reply, in effect, "if you don't like it here you can quit." A quitting is
not established by a pronouncement from an employer but by a voluntary act of the
employee, and upon the entire evidence I am convinced that there was nothing volun-
tary on the part of Perez and Minjarez in having their employment with the Respond-
ent terminated
I have found the version given by these employees as to what was said in Ingram's
office more specific and comprehensive in its detail 2 and, on the whole, more con-
vincing than that rendered by Ingram and his supervisor, Mendez,3 but assuming that
in stating her proposals Minjarez employed the term "quit" as an alternative to having
her proposals accepted, when Ingram forthwith rejected these proposals neither em-
ployee signified that she was actually quitting but to the contrary, as she testified,
Minjarez told Ingram that she was only "asking questions." But having instructed
Mendez to punch their timecards and make out quit slips, Ingram terminated the
interview. It is fairly obvious, as testified to by Minjarez, that he was in an angry
mood and that he afforded the two employees little if any opportunity to clarity their
own position with reference to quitting
In rejecting Respondent's version of a quitting, 1 have further been impressed by
what I believe to be a substantially accurate account by Perez and Minjarez on what
occurred at their worktable after they had left Ingram's office While Ingram did not
recall whether he spoke to them there, their testimony was that he did and that he
instructed them to check out Against the acceptance of this testimony I have
weighed the testimony of Forelady Jessie Macias, but if they informed Macias that
they would not accept any more work because they had quit, as she testified they did,
T am unable to understand Macias' suggestion of interceding with Ingram in their
behalf Obviously such a suggestion of intercession would flow more consistently
from advice that they had been discharged than that they had quit. If they were
voluntarily leaving their employment, what point would there have been for Macias,
or Mendez, as the case may be, to intercede with Ingram in their behalf? Further,
i I' m instance, llinlarez' explanation of why she felt justified in asking for a return to
piece«oik, omitted by both V1endez and Ingiam in their testimony but included in the affi-
das its they gas e an agent of the Cenei al Counsel pi ioi to the hearing If Ingram's testi-
nionv sseie accepted as ieflecting fully and accurately what happened in his office, Dhnjarez
laid down a flat ultimatum which he immediately accepted and the interview was over in
5 minutes While the interview doubtless was beef, I ain sine there was it bit moie to it
than that
3I of course agree with the statement of Respondent's counsel in oral argument that the
credibility of Respondent's witnesses is not impugned by the mere fact that they are a
part of management The reasonable natural self-interest of the witnesses is always a
factor to be taken into account in resolving a contlict in testimony, and has been taken
into account here, whether the ssitiess' interests aie allied with management or with the
charging parties
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they had returned to their worktable at least with the intention of signifying their
willingness to continue on their jobs, and that Ingram spoke to them there, finds cor-
roboration in Mendez' prehearing affidavit which contains this language.
I thought it was understood they were going to quit, but they went back to their
tables to work, so I just went back to my job. I was coming back to the thread
room when I saw Mr Ingram talking to them. He told me to call Minnie and
tell her to get the girls' check ready.
Finally, all conversations after they had left Ingram's office in which they allegedly
gave quitting as their explanation for leaving their jobs, occurred in the Spanish lan-
guage and it appears from Macias' testimony, even if that testimony be accepted, that
they did not use the Spanish equivalent for "quit" but actually used Spanish words
meaning "I am through " Obviously, such an expression is susceptible to a variety
of interpretations Not knowing Spanish, I of course do not particularly rely on this
phase of the matter but upon other factors which I have mentioned, upon my obser-
vation of the witnesses, and the overall picture as it takes shape from the entire evi-
dence in the case, in concluding, as t do, that neither to Macias nor to Prieto did
Perez or Minjarez state that they had voluntarily terminated their employment with
the Respondent The crux of the matter, in any event, is not the ex post facto state-
ment of the employees concerning the nature of the termination of their employment,
which might have been influenced by personal considerations of pride and embarass-
ment, but the nature of the termination itself.
I am unable to subscribe to Respondent's theory that, because on the very day fol-
lowing the termination of their employment they filed charges with the Boaid alleging
that they had been discriminatorily discharged, they deliberately sought the termina-
tion of their employment as a part of a predetermined plan of action. I am unable to
subscribe to such a theory because there is nothing to support it except the bale fact
that the charge of unlawful discharge was quickly filed, furthermore, such a course
of action would be inexplicable on the grounds of self-interest Assuming they were
successful in establishing a case of discrimination and benefited under the usual
remedial order in such cases, such benefits would only restore them to their old lobs,
without any change whatever in the conditions they were seeking to better, and in
the interim they would have been put to the inconvenience, uncertainty, and possible
hardship incurred in finding other employment.4 Nor did Perez and Minjarez ml-
press me as employees who would boldly walk into their employer's office and lay
down an ultimatum that he grant their demands for increased wage benefits and paid
vacations or they would quit. These were Spanish-speaking women, only fairly articu-
late in English, and their demeanor was characterized more by timidity than boldness
in the presence of authority as represented by the plant manager. Furthermore, there
was so little of an actual plan of action that Minjarez herself appears not to have
known that Perez was asking for an interview with Ingram at that particular time
until the request had already been made and she was approached by Mendez with the
query whether she, as one of the finalists, wished to see Ingram in the latter's office
Upon the entire evidence and upon my observation of the witnesses, it is found
that the Respondent on November 16, 1954, discharged Perez and Minjarez because
of their concerted activities, in violation of Section 8 (a) (I) and (3) of the Acts No
independent violations of the Act were alleged.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent, set forth in section 1, above, 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 commei ce
and the free flow of commerce
4Actually accoidina to Peie,, she obtained other employment after about a inontli and
accmdnig to Minia10/ she bad not yet been able to obtain «ml:
On the theoiv that cotpioyees acting conceitedli «iihin the meaning of the Act consti-
tute themselves a lahoi ui CanVati On, and that a disihaigc for said conceited activities
dlseuuiages niembeiShip iii a 121)1(1 m2aiil7ation the L'o,ud huts custoinaiily found such
a dischai _e to constiinto a violation of both Section 8 (ii) (1) and (3) of the Act but tiere
the finding limited to 2 violation of Section 8 (a) (1) alone the remedy pioposed ttotild
,villa111 subathntialiv tie same The Ohio Out Company, 92 NLRB 1597, at p 1595, and
cast's cited tiieiein
CRAMET, INC.
V THE REMEDY
975
Having found that the Respondent discharged Teresa Perez and Esperanza Min-
jarez because of their concerted activities, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in their right to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid
and protection, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to each of them
immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, if any, and make
each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against her, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which
she normally would have earned from November 16, 1954, to the date when, pur-
suant to the recommendations herein contained, Respondent shall offer them rein-
statement, less the net earnings of each during said period Loss of pay shall be de-
termined in the manner set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
N L R. B v Seven-Up Bottling Co, 344 U. S. 344 It is further iecommended that
Respondent make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records as
required in order to facilitate the computation of the amount of back pay due. F. W
Woohi oith Conipanv, sepia
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case. I make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Teresa
Perez and Esperanza A. Mmjarez because they engaged in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, Respondent in-
terfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, and Respondent has thereby engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (I) of the Act
2 By engaging in such discrimination, thereby discouraging formation of and
membership in labor oiganizations, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
Cramet, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union , CIO,' Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC,-2992. May 31,
1915
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon it petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearmg was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
?. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
,of the Employer.2
'Thiouehont the instant pioeceding, I'etitionei was designated as United Gas, Coke &
Chemical R'ei kei c of Anici ica, CTf) Subsequent to the healing, it changed its naive and
moved to amend the petition and other formal papeis to show its piesent name, set foith
above No objection having been made theieto we giant the motion
2 United Automobile NVoikeis of Ameiica, AFL, leas permitted to inteivene and was
iepiesented at the houuig After the close of the heanng, Tnteinational Chemical W'orkeis
Union AFL, moved to intervene Since, at the time of the heainig it had such a iepie-
112 NLRB No 129