The Arrowhead Rubber Co. of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1618 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

a
In the Matter of THE ARROWHEAD RUBBER COMPANY OF TEXAS and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. and RUBBER
WORKERS INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. 16-C-1017.-Decided June 21, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 12, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled `proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent and the
R. W. 1. 0. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. No request for oral argument before the Board at Washing-
ton, D. C., was made by any of the parties.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and
finds that no prejudicial error was comrhitted. ' The rulings are
'hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Re-
port, the exceptions and briefs filed by the respondent and the
R. W. I. 0., and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, The Arrowhead Rubber Company
of Texas, Dallas, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
IThe Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by
posting a certain notice on April 9, 1943, and by other specified acts. We interpret the
finding as based on the totality of the respondent's acts, and not on the April 9 notice,
standing alone. -
The Trial Examiner further found that Chief Accountant Cowsert remained at the No-
vember 11, 1943, meeting during the time when the United Workers was formed. We do not
adopt this finding.
56 N. L. R. B., No. 292. -
1618
- THE ARROWHEAD RUBBER COMPANY OF TEXAS 1619 ;
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing support to ,. United Workers Arrowhead Company of Texas
or Rubber Workers Industrial Organization , and dominating or inter-
fering with the formation or administration of, or contributing sup
port to, any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing United Workers Arrowhead Company of Texas
or Rubber , Workers Industrial Organization ,as the representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment , or other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any contract with Rubber Workers Industrial
Organization concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing -
its employees inthe exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
labor organizations , to join or assist International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities , for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the-Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish
Rubber Workers Industrial Organization as the representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
cerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant,
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: ( 1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c ), and (d ), of this Order,
and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth
in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith. -
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent kept under surveillance the activities , meetings,
and meeting places of the Union and the employees ; solicited em-
ployees to make reports concerning the leadership and activities of
employees on behalf of the Union; and required employees to execute
1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statements repudiating their membership. in the Union, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Elmer Davis, for the Board.
Mr. Ely ,Straus, of Dallas, Texas, for the respondent.
Mr. Andrew Clinton, of Dallas, Texas, for the Union.
Mr. Aubrey J. Roberts, df Dallas, Texas, for the R. W. I. 0.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE`
lI
Upon charges duly filed on December 4, 1943, by International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated Feb-
ruary 8, 1944, against The -'Arrowhead Rubber Company of Texas, Dallas, Texas,
herein pilled the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the 'respondent, the Union, and the Rubber Workers In-
dustrial Organization, herein called the R. W. I 0., a labor organization alleged
in the complaint to be dominated and supported by the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance:,
(1) that from about March 1, 1943, to the date of the complaint, the respondent
_urged,• persuaded, and warned its employees to refrain from aiding, or becoming
or remaining members of the Union ; threatened its employees with discharge
or other reprisals if they aided the Union or members thereof ; kept under sur-
veillance the activities, meetings, and meeting places of the Union and of its
employees ; solicited its employees to make reports concerning the leadership
and activities of employees on behalf of the Union ; required employees under
threat of loss of employment or continuance of employment in unbearable posi-
tions, to execute statements concerning the activities of employees on behalf of
the Union; transferred employees to less, desirable work and, as a condition to
a return to their former positions, required them to execute statements repudi-
ating their membership,in the Union or the charges of discrimination filed with
the Board by the Union in a preceding case; and threatened to close the plant
in the event the Union succeeded in organizing it; (2) that on or about Novem-
ber 11, 1943, the respondent initiated, formed, and sponsored a labor organization,
among its employees known as United Workers Arrowhead Company] of Texas,
herein called the United Workers, and between November 12 and 15, 1943, in-
itiated, formed, and sponsored R. W. I. 0., a successor to the United Workers,
and from on or about the above-stated dates, -has assisted, dominated, supported,
and interfered with the, administration of United Workers and R. W. I. 0.; (3)
that on or about November 15, 1943, the respondent entered into a collective bar-
gaining contract with R. W. I. 0. and that said contract is invalid since R. W. I. 0.
did not represent an uncoerced majority in an appropriate unit at the time the
contract was executed; and (4) that by the above-stated conduct, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed an answer dated February 17, 1944, admitting the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint and denying that it has committed any of the
alleged unfair labor practices. R. W. I. 0. filed an answer dated February 17,
THE ARROWHEAD RUBBER 'COMPANY OF TEXAS 1621
1944, admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and denying that
the respondent had committed the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held from February 21 to 23, 1944, at Dallas,
Texas, before William F. Guffey, Jr., the undersigned Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the
R. W. I. O. were represented by counsel, the Union by its representative, and all
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon -the issues was af-
forded all parties. After all the evidence was adduced, the undersigned granted,
over objections by the respondent and R W. I. 0., the Board's motion to conform
the complaint to the proof. He likewise granted, without objection, motions of
the respondent and R. W. I. O. to conform their respective answers to the proof.
At the close of the hearing all parties were advised that they might argue orally
before the Trial Examiner and that they might file briefs with him. Counsel for
the-respondent presented oral argument; all other parties waived this right.
The respondent and R. W. I. O. reserved the right to file briefs ; all other parties
waived this right. No briefs have been filed
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
The Arrowhead Rubber Company of Texas, the respondent herein, is a Texas
corporation having its plant and principal place of business at Dallas, Texas,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of rubber fittings
for airplanes. The raw materials used by the respondent consist principally of
natural, synthetic, and reclaimed rubber and' chemicals. A substantial portion
of such raw materials are shipped to the respondent's plant from points outside
the State of Texas. During the fiscal year ending September 1, 1943, the respond-
ent's finished products were valued in excess of $10,000, approximately 20 percent
of which was shipped to points outside the State of Texas. The respondent ad-
mits in its answer that a substantial part of its raw materials and finished .Prod-
nets move in interestate and foreign commerce. The respondent does not chal-
lenge the jurisdiction of the Board.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Rubber Workers Industrial Organization is an unaffiliated labor oganization
admitting to membership only employees of the respondent.
United Workers Arrowhead Company of Texas was until formation of its suc-
cessor , Rubber Workers Industrial Organization, an 'unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership only employees of the respondent. -
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent 's responsibility for the activities of various employees
Involved in the, incidents described in the following section concerning the
formation and administration of United Workers and R. W. I. O. are several
employees whose supervisory status and identity with management is in ques-
tion. The undersigned will at this point determine the respondent's responsibility
for their activities.
1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frank Mince: One employee testified that Mince is the respondent's assistant
superintendent ; another testified that he is foreman of the mill room ; a third
testified that Mince transferred her from one job to another. The testimony of
these three witnesses is uncontradicted. As will hereinafter appear, Mince with-
drew from United Workers upon advice of its counsel that he was not eligible
for membership because of his supervisory duties.
Mrs. Cowsert: There are four girls employed in the respondent's office. Ac-
cording to the credible and uncontradicted testimony of one such employee,
Cowsert is the respondent's chief accountant and is "boss over the office girls."
Robert Harold, the respondent's assistant general manager, when asked to name
the respondent's supervisory employees, named Cowsert together with himself,
Sterling P. Atkinson, the general manager, and Roy Ex, the plant superintendent.
William A. Hawkins: Hawkins is in charge of the respondent's trimming de-
partment where 10 or 12 employees work Eva Ferguson, a former employee,
testified that Hawkins' "duties is to carry out the orders given him in, show-
ing the girls what to do and getting out the material as it is supposed to be got-
ten out." Hawkins testified that he is foreman of the trimming department,
that he assigns the employees to different jobs, sees that they get their work out,
tells the employees what to do and how to do it. He further testified that if an
employee disobeys his instruction he reports the matter to Plant Superintendent
Ex. He also testified that he designates which of the employees in his depart-
ment are to be temporarily transferred to other work when circumstances re-
quire such transfers. Hawkins earns 85 cents per hour while the other em-
ployees in his department earn 60 cents per hour. Hawkins cannot hire or dis-
charge employees or recommend such action. According to his testimony, he
works at manual labor about 6 hours per day and spends the balance of his time
instructing other employees. Harold substantially corroborated Hawkins' tes-
timony concerning Hawkins' duties. Harold further testified that Hawkins is
designated on the respondent's pay roll as either a foreman or a leadman, that
the two terms are interchangeable, and that it would be correct to call Hawkins
a working foreman:
George Knowles: Knowles, according -to Hawkins' testimony is foreman of
the press room where from two to four employees work and has about the same
status in the press room as Hawkins has in the trimming department. Knowles,
according to Hawkins, cannot hire or discharge employees or recommend such
action. Harold testified that Knowles, like Hawkins, performs manual labor but
he acts in the capacity of leadman.
The undersigned finds, upon the foregoing evidence, which he credits, and upon
the entire record, that Mince is foreman of the mill room ; that Cowsert is the
chief accountant ; that Hawkins is foreman of the trimming department ; and
that Knowles is foreman of the press room.
The respondent's plant is small, having only about 35 employees at the times
material to these proceedings. The power to hire and discharge employees
rests exclusively with, General Manager Atkinson, Assistant General Manager
Harold, and Plant Superintendent Ex. Although neither Mince, Cowsert,
Hawkins nor Knowles can hire or discharge employees, the undersigned finds
that these four employees are supervisory employees; that in the minds of the
other employees they are reasonably identified with the management, and that
the respondent is responsible for their activities in matters pertaining to labor
relations.'
I International Association of Machinists v N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, 79-80 ; H. J. Heins
v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514, 518-20.
THE ARROWHEAD RUBBER COMPANY OF TEXAS 1623 /
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion; interference with, domination and
support of United Workers and R. W. I. 0.
1. Chronology of events
The Union commenced its organizational campaign at the respondent's plant
about March 11, 1943., Lillian Firth, at that time an employee in the preparation
department, who was'among the first to join the Union, joined on that day. On
March 12, Firth was instrumental in getting several other employees to join. On
the same day, Foreman Mince,' transferred Firth to work on a sand blaster.
According to Fu th's uncontradicted and credible testimony, work on the sand
blaster was customarily done by men because the respondent recognized that
"it wasn't a fit job for a woman." °
On March 17, the Union distributed a circular to the employees at the plant and
Firth talked to several employees about the Union. On the same day, Donald
E. Beard, at that time the respondent's personnel director, called Firth to his
office. He told her that if she repeated anything he said, she "would be made
out a liar." He then asked Firth why she had not come to him for wage increases
instead of "calling on outside help," and stated that General Manager Atkinson
would "close the plant down in 10 days rather than have the C. I 0."
On March 19, Plant Superintendent Ex asked Firth, in substance, why she had
not come to the respondent instead of the Union for help in improving working
conditions. Ex told Firth that General Manager Atkinson "had done a good
job" and that he would hate to see Atkinson "close the plant down, which he
probably would before he would let a union in there."
On or about March 24, Firth was transferred from the day to the night shift
in the trimming department. On March 29, Firth and 10 or 12 other employees
were laid off. According to Firth's credible and uncontradicted testimony, all
of the members of the Union employed in the trimming department were laid off
and all of the laid off employees except two, were members of the Union' On
March 30, the Union filed with the Board, charges of interference, restraint, and
coercion and discrimination against 11 employees., On April 5, the employees laid
off on March 29 were reinstated. Mary Gregg, an employee, testified that prior to
the March lay-offs, employees who were not members of the Union worked on the
night shift and that when the laid off employees were reinstated, those who were
not members of the,Union were put on the day shift and all members of the
Union were put on the night shift. On April 6, Firth, one of the employees
reinstated on April 5, was again laid off.
On April 9, the respondent posted the following notice in the plant:
2 This name is sometimes spelled Mints in the record.
Firth testified, however, that another woman had at one time worked on the sand blaster
about a year and that another one worked on it "off and on."
4 Sometime prior to March 31, the respondent posted in the plant a notice stating. "It is
against the rules of the company for any employee to solicit membership in or funds for any
organization or agency on company time. To violate this rule subjects an employee to
immediate dismissal ."' The notice is undated and the exact date of the posting is not dis-
closed by the record. Harold testified, however, that it was posted sometime during the
first quarter of 1943, but he did not know whether it was before or after March 11. The
substance of this notice strongly suggests that' it was directed against the Union and its
organization drive. However, since it is not shown whether the notice was posted before
or after the commencement of the Union 's organizational attempts , the undersigned takes ne
cognizance of the posting of the notice.
I
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
NOTICE TO ALL, EMPLOYEES
It is not a condition to your employment in the plant that you join any
union or other organization in order to keep your job and advance with us.
The Arrowhead Rubber Co. of Texas will deal as fairly with those who are
non-members'of any organization as with those who are members.
On April 11, the Union again filed charges of interference, restraint, and
coercion and unlawful discrimination against certain employees.
Gregg testified that on or about April 27, 1943, Personnel Director Beard took
4 employees who were claimed in the charges filed by the Union on March 30
to have been discriminatorily discharged, to his office where he told them that
the respondent was attempting to get National War Labor Board approval for a
wage increase, asked them why they did not come to him instead of seeking
"outside help" by which he said he meant the Union, and asked the employees
to withdraw the unfair labor practice charges which the Union had filed with
the Board on April 11. When the employees left the office, Beard told one of
them, Gregg, "to get the chip off [her] shoulder.'.' Later on that day the four
employees were laid off. -
Neither Personnel Director Beard nor Plant Superintendent Ex testified at the
hearing. The testimony of Firth and Gregg, concerning the statements and
activities of Beard and Ex as outlined above is uncontradicted. The undersigned
credits this testimony and finds that Beard and Ex made the statements and
engaged in the activities related by Firth and Gregg.
Likewise, the testimony of Firth and Gregg concerning the transfer of Firth
to less desirable work on March 12, the transfer of Firth to the night shift on
March 24, the lay-off of members of, the Union at various times during March
and April, and the placing of members of the,Union on the night shift and non-
members on the day shift at the time of the reinstatements after the March
lay-offs is uncontradicted. The only attempt of the respondent to rebut this
evidence is Harold's testimony that he had no knowledge of the union membership
of the employees who were laid off and the testimony of Eva Ferguson, a former
employee in t=ie trimming department, that she, not a member of the Union,
requested a particular job, thatcher request was denied and the job was,given to
Gregg who was a member of the Union. Harold's denial of knowledge of the
union membership of the laid off employees is practically meaningless since Plant
Superintendent Ex usually made the selections for lay-off and he did not testify
at the hearing. Clearly, the one incident concerning Ferguson and Gregg is not
sufficient to show an absence of discrimination against members of the Union.
The undersigned credits the testimony of Firth and Gregg and finds that on
March 12, 1943, Firth was transferred to less desirable employment, that on
March 24, Firth was transferred to the night shift, that at various times during
March and April certain members of the Union were laid off, and that after one
such lay-off in March members of the Union, when reinstated, were placed on
the night shift and non-members were placed on the day shift which was con-
trary to the situation existing prior to the lay-off. ,
The charges filed on April 11, 1943, ,as amended, afforded the basis for a com-
plaint issued by the Board on July 20, 1943 5 That case was terminated by means
of a settlement agreement dated August 4, 1943.°
On August 31, 1943, the Union sent a letter to the respondent, in which it claimed
to represent a majority of the respondent's production and maintenance employees
Case No. 16-C-944.
e The settlement agreement and the effect thereof are discussed infra, Section III, B, 2.
THE ARROWHEAD' RUBBER COMPANY OF TEXAS 1625
and requested recognition - and' negotiations, looking toward a contract . The re-
spondent admits that it received the Union 's letter and that it made no reply
to it.' Thereafter, the Union filed with the Board a petition for investigation
and certification. The Regional Director attempted to dispose of the petition
by means of a check of the Union's designation cards against the respondent's
pay roll or by a consent election . The respondent refused to agree to any in-
formal determination of the Union's claim to represent the employees. The nat-
ter was then set for formal hearing before a Trial Examiner on November 12,
1943.8
On the morning of November 11, Assistant General Manager Harold reserved
an apartment suite and a meeting room, known as the , Sun Room, at the Stone-
leigh Hotel in Dallas for the night of November 11. Harold testified that the
suite was reserved as the living quarters for Cecil Collins, the -respondent's
attorney who arrived from California on that day, and, the Sun Room was re-
served for a meeting of the employees at which wage rates and the difficulties
of obtaining W. L B. approval for wage increases were to be discussed with the
employees Harold completed arrangements for the employees' meeting and noti-
fied Plant Superintendent Ex to inform the employees of the meeting. At 3: 57
p. in. on November 11, Harold and Collins went to the Stoneleigh Hotel. Harold
registered for the apartment suite and the Sun Room in his own name and Collins
then took possession ,of the apartment suite.
Ferguson testified that at about noon on November 11, she was told that a meet-
ing would be held that evening at the Stoneleigh Hotel for the purpose of form-
ing a labor organization among the respondent's employees Ferguson testified that
she did not remember who informed her of the time and place of the meeting-
Ferguson notified other employees of the meeting. Chief • Accountant. Cowsert
notified the office employees. At about 3: 00 p. m. on November 11, Ferguson left
the plant and went to downtown Dallas. She returned to the plant about 5: 00
p. m. While away from the plant, Ferguson telephoned Aubrey J. Roberts, the
R. W. I. O.'s counsel in this proceeding, retained him to assist in the formation
of a labor organization at the respondent's plant, and arranged to confer with
him for that purpose at his office on November 13.°
It is not clear whether Harold accompanied Collins to his rooms at the Stone-
leigh at the time Collins took possession of them. Harold, however, returned
to the hotel and went to Collins' suite about 7: 30 or 8: 00 o'clock that evening.
Sometime between 3: 57 p. m , when Collins checked into the suite, and 8: 20
p. m. the same evening, a telephone call was made from Collins' suite to the office
of Attorney Roberts."
7 The respondent explains its failure to reply to the Union 's letter on the ground that it
contained no evidence supporting the Union 's claim to represent the employees and re-
quested a reply within 24 hours , a period of time which would permit no satisfactory reply,
8 Case No. 16-R-733, now pending before the Board.
° Ferguson testified that she left the plant on the afternoon of November 11 for the pur-
pose of having an injured finger examined by a doctor , that she had no appointment with
the doctor , that the doctor was not in his office, and that the call to Roberts was made while
she was awaiting the respondent's truck which had conveyed her to the doctor 's office and
was to convey her back to the plant . Neither Ferguson nor the respondent explained why
Ferguson was permitted to absent herself from her work for about 2 hours and travel
several miles to see a doctor with whom she had no appointment..
i" This finding is based upon the credible testimony of the Stoneleigh Hotel Manager who
testified with the aid of the hotel records which were presented in the hearing room. The
time the call was placed could not be more definitely ascertained. Harold testified that he
made no calls from Collins" suite. Neither Collins nor any of the respondent's high
ranking officials , except Harold , testified at the hearing.
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Beginning at about 8 i 00 p m. on November 11, 10 or 12 of the respondent's em-
ployees who had been notified of the meeting gathered in Collins' suite.11 In-
cluded among them were Foremen Hawkins, Knowles, and Mince and Chief Ac-
countant Cowsert. Also present at the meeting were General Manager Atkinson,
Plant Superintendent Ex, Harold, and Collins. Collins spoke to the employees
about the wage rates at the respondent's Dallas and California, plants and about
the respondent's attempts to secure W. L. B. approval of wage increases .at the
Dallas plant." According to Ferguson's testimony, Collins also discussed dif-
ferent types of labor organizations She testified that Collins said that the
C. I. O. is "a very good organization," that the A. F. of L is a "good organization,"
and then stated that an "employees' organization" would be one "among the em-
ployees at the plant." According to the testimony of Polly N. Powell, one of the
respondent's bookkeepers, Collins talked about the organizational form of the
C. I. 0., the A. F. of L., and independent unions and said that if the employees
wanted to form a union of their own, they should get an attorney to assist them.
Foreman Hawkins corroborated Powell's testimony concerning Collins' advice to
obtain the services of an attorney. Collins also said, according to Powell, that
uit- i esnonaent's executives could not be present during the formation of a union
and if the employees wanted to organize one, they should wait until the re-
spondent's executives had left the meeting.
The undersigned credits the testimony of Ferguson, Powell, and Hawkins, which
for the most part is uncontradicted, and finds that the substance of Collins' re-
anarks to the employees Was as related by Ferguson, Powell, and Hawkins.
About 9: 00 p. m., Harold, Collins, Atkinson, and Ex left Collins' suite, leaving
fit in the possession of the 10 or 12 employees. Apparently no arrangements were
made for Collins' return to the rooms and no particular person was charged with
the responsibility of caring for the premises, locking the doors when the em-
ployees left, or making the key available to Collins when he returned to the hotel.
According to Hawkins' credible testimony, as Harold and the others were leaving,
Harold told the employees that he had had some sandwiches sent up which he
had forgotten to serve and the-employees were at liberty to consume them. So
far as the record shows, that was the only departing remark of Harold and those
who left with him.
Chief Accountant Cowsert and Foremen Hawkins, Knowles, and Mince remained
with the other employees when Harold, Collins, Atkinson, and Ex left the meeting.
Ferguson was then informally selected chairman of the meeting and led the dis-
cussion concerning formation of a labor organization. Ferguson had with her
at the meeting a petition which she had previously prepared for the signature of
those employees who were interested in forming an inside union. During the
course of the meeting, it was decided to circulate this petition among the em-
ployees. Other organizational plans were made, United Workers Arrowhead
Company of Texas was selected as the name of the organization, and temporary
officers were elected. The temporary officers included Ferguson as president and
i'orernan Mince as vice president.18 '
u For some unexplained reason the Sun Room which had been reserved for the meeting
was not used although it was available for that purpose and was paid for either by Collins
or Harold. The meeting, instead was held in Collins' rooms. '
.19 Harold testified that Collins had originally planned to represent the respondent at the
representation hearing before the Board which was scheduled to be heard in Dallas on
November 12, that because of circumstances arising after Collins' departure from California,
lie was unable to do so, and that the employees' meeting was held to enable Collins to "do
some good" by talking to the employees about wages.
13 Shortly after this meeting , Roberts advised the employees that Mince was not eligible
for membership in the organization and he resigned.
THE'ARROWHEAD RUBBER COMPANY OF TEXAS .1627
On November 12, Ferguson circulated the United Workers petition among the
employees before work and at lunch time. By 1 p. in. on that day a majority of
the respondent's employees had signed the petition. At 10 a. in. on November 12,
the hearing on the Union's petition for investigation and certification 14 was
opened. At,the beginning of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a request,"
to-postpone the hearing to 1 p. in Sometime-during the morning of November 12,
Attorney Roberts phoned Ferguson and told her to^ bring the petition she had
circulated among the employees and appear at the representation hearing at
1 p in. It is not clear how Roberts knew of the petition. Ferguson testified that
she had not mentioned it to Roberts. When the representation hearing resumed,
Roberts, on behalf of the United Workers, moved to intervene on the basis of the
petition which Ferguson had circulated.16
On November 15, a second meeting of the employees was held at the Baker
Hotel in Dallas, in a room obtained by Roberts. It does not appear who paid for
the room. The meeting was attended by about 10 or 15 employees. Permanent
officers were elected including Foreman Hawkins as -president. A constitution
and by laws of the new organization which Roberts had prepared were adopted
and, the, name of the organization was changed to, Rubber Workers Industrial
Organization." A contract, which Roberts, with Ferguson's assistance, had
drafted, was discussed and ipproved by those present, and the president appointed
a bargaining committee to present the contract to the respondent.
On November 16, R. W. I. 0 presented for the first time the proposed, contract,
which it had approved the preceding evening, to Atkinson and Harold, the
respondent's representatives. The contract contained inter alia, provisions for
the exclusive recognition of R. W. I. 0., check oft of R. W. I. O. dues, wage in-
creases and overtime pay, Christmas bonuses, job preference according to seniority,
and vacations with pay. At the same time, R. W. I. O. presented to the respondent
a membership petition signed by the employees. Harold checked the signatures
on the petition against the payroll and found that a majority of the employees
had signed. The contract was discussed but no changes were made in' it.
Atkinson phoned,Attorney Collins in California, read parts of the contract to
him, and obtained Collins' approval of executing the agreement. Two hours
after the contract was presented to the respondent, the respondent's'igned it in ^
the exact form in which it was presented. .
On December 7, 1943, Powell, acting upon instructions from' Chief Accountant'
Cowsert, obtained from the employees during working hours authorizations for
the respondent to check-off from the employees' wages their B. W. I.-O dues.
2. The settlement agreement and the effect thereof
As noted above, the, Union, on March 30, 1943, filed charges of interference,
restraint, and coercion and unlawful discrimination against the employees who'
were laid off on March 29.17 No complaint issued in that case. Those charges
were apparently settled by the reinstatement of the laid-off employees and
the posting of a notice dated April 6, 1943. The notice, in substance, stated
that the respondent would not discriminate against employees because of union
activity ; that `it would, not in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act ; and
14 Case No . 16-R-733.
i5 The Trial Examiner granted this motion.
16 It was stipulated at the hearing that R. W. I. 0 Is the successor to United Workers.
The undersigned so finds.
11 Case No. 16-C-937.
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that supervisory employees were instructed to maintain a neutral position re-
garding employee organizational affairs.
.On April 11, 1943,, the Union again filed charges of interference, restraint, and
coercion and discrimination against certain employees. Those charges, as
amended, afforded the basis for a complaint issued by the Board on. July 20,
1943.18 A stipulation in settlement of that case was executed on August 4,
1943, by the respondent, the Union's representative, and the Board's attorney.
The stipulation provided in substance for' the payment of back pay, to 3 em-
ployees, the posting of, an appropriate notice, and compliance by the respondent
with the terms of the notice. , The notice stated that the respondent would not
in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by the Act ; that it would not discriminate against
employees because of union activity.; that it would offer reinstatement to 3
named employees and pay back pay to 6 named employees ; and that supervisory
employees were instructed to take notice of the foregoing provisions of the notice
and use diligence in seeing that they are carefully followed. • .
The notice was posted for the required period of time and the respondent
complied with the provisions of the, stipulation and notice requiring affirmative
action by the respondent. On November 3, 1943, the Regional, Director, issued
his order dismissing the complaint.
The respondent contends that the settlement of August 4, 1943, precludes a
finding that the respondent engaged in any unfair labor practices,prior thereto.
The Board has held that where an agreement in settlement of unfair labor
practice charges has been reached with the participation of Board agents, the
Board, for reasons of policy and in the exercise of its discretion, will refrain
from considering alleged unfair labor practices settled by the agreement unless
there has been a continuation of unfair labor practices or a breach of the agree-
ment or for other reasons the policies of the Act would not be effectuated'
by giving effect to the agreement.19 On the" other hand, the Board has many
times refused to give effect to such agreements where the unfair labor practices
have continued or been resumed or where. the agreement has been breached
or where to do so would prevent effectuation of the policies of the Act.20 As
stated by the Board in the Ohto Calcium case:21`"Whether or not,we should
give effect to a settlement cannot be determined by a mechanical application
of rigid a priori rules but'must be determined by the exercise of a sound
judgment based upon all the circumstances of each case.",
It is hereafter found that the respondent initiated, sponsored, and' assisted
the formation of a labor' organization after the execution of the August 4, 1943,
settlement agreement. The undersigned views this activity, as a violation of
the respondent's agreement not to in any manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act and
as a- resumption of unfair labor practices which amply justifies consideration
of the unfair labor practices engaged in prior to' the settlement agreement.
11 Case No. 16-C-944
19 Matter of The Ohio Calcium Company, 34 N. L R B. 917, 934-5; Matter of Tulsa
Boiler and Machinery Company, 23 N. L R. B. 846, 850-1; Matter of Shenandoah-Dives
Mining Company, 11 , N L. R. B 885; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc ; 12 N. L. R. B. 568
"Matter of F. M. Stamper Company, 54 N. L. It. B. 297, decided January 5, 1944 ; Matter
of Gelfallan Bros, Inc., 53 N. L. R B. 574, decided November 13, 1943; Matter of Central.
Steel Tube Company, 48 N. , L R. B 604, 618; Matter of Taylor-Colquitt Company, 47
N. L. R. B 225, 234-42; Matter of American Rolling Mill ,Company, 43 N L. B, B . 1020,
1051-2.
21 Cited in note 19; supra.
1
THE ARROWHEAD RUBBER COMPANY , OF TEXAS - 1629)
3. Conclusions with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion
The undersigned is convinced that the activities and statements of Personnel
Director Beard and Plant Superintendent Ex, the posting of' the April 9
notice, and the respondent's discrimination against members of the Union
concerning hire and tenure and other conditions of employment, as above set
forth in detail, was directed against the Union and was motivated by the
respondent's desire to defeat the Union's attempts to organize the employees.
This 'conclusion, though, otherwise warranted, is inescapable in view of, the
timing of the respondent's conduct. Thus, Firth joined the Union on March
11 and succeeded in getting several other employees to join on March 12.
Firth was transferred from the preparation department to the sand blaster on
March 12. On March 17, the Union circularized the employees and Firth talked
to several employees about the Union. On March 17, Personnel Director Beard
criticized Firth for "calling on outside help" and stated that General Manager
Atkinson would close the plant rather than permit the Union to organize the
employees. On March 19, Plant Superintendent Ex spoke to Firth in almost iden-
tical terms On March 24, Firth was transferred to the night shift. On March
29, Firth and about 10 other members of. the Union were laid off. When they
were reinstated on, April 5, after the filing of charges with the Board, members
of the Union were placed on the night shift and non-members were placed.on
the day shift contrary to previous practice On April 6, Firth was again
laid off. On April 9, the respondent posted a notice advising the employees
that they need not join 'a union to protect their jobs and that the respondent
would -deal as fairly with non-members as it would with members of a labor
organization. On April 27, Personnel Director Beard criticized 4 employees
for seeking, "outside help" and tried to induce them to withdraw the charges
the Union had filed with the Board. Later that day the 4 employees were
laid off.
Each time the Union made an appeal to the employees, the respondent took
action against the Union's members. When the respondent pretended to settle
the charges filed on March 30, it discriminated against members of the Union
in the very act of reinstatement: And shortly thereafter, the respondent again
laid off several members of the Union. The notice posted on April 9 was, in
the undersigned's opinion, clearly, 'a move to dissuade the employees from
joining the Union. Beard's and Ex's criticism of seeking "outside help" and
their threats that Atkinson would close the plant rather than recognize the,
Union, were in the undersigned's opinion, calculated to have the same effect.
The undersigned finds that by the above-stated activity and statements of
Personnel Director Beard and Plant Superintendent Ex during March and April
1943, by the posting of the April 9 notice, and by discrimination aginst members
of the Union with respect to hire and tenure and other terms and conditions
of employment during March and April 1943, the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act .2' , /
It is further found that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent
kept under surveillance the activities, meetings, and meeting places of the,
Union and the employees ; solicited the employees and required employees to
make reports concerning the leadership and activities of employees on behalf
23 The complaint alleges the discrimination against members of the Union only as inter-
ference, restraint,, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) and not of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
587784-45--vol. 56-104
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Union ; and required employees to execute statements repudiating their
membership in the Union are not supported by the evidence . It will be recom-
mended that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
4. Conclusions with respect to interference with, domination and support or
United Workers and R. W. I. 0.
It is clear from the evidence above set forth relating to the formation of the
United Workers and the R. W. I. 0. and the respondent 's dealings with the
R. W. I. 0. after its -organization was perfected , that these organizations were
the respondent ' s creatures.
Assistant General Manager Harold arranged the meeting at which the United
Workers was formed. Either he or Attorney Collins paid for the room in
which the meeting was held . The formation of United Workers occurred dur-
ing the two hours after and in the same room where Attorney Collins had dis-
cussed unions with the employees and stated that the employees should seek
legal advice if they wanted to form a union . General Manager Atkinson,
Assistant General Manager Harold, and Plant Superintendent Ex were present
during Collins ' discussion with the -employees . Chief Accountant Cowsert and
Foremen Hawkins , Mince, and Knowles were also present and remained and
participated in the formation of United Workers. Foreman Mince was the
organization 's first vice president
The undersigned is not favorably impressed with Harold 's testimony that this
meeting was held solely for the purpose of discussing wages and that.when he
arranged the meeting he knew of no intention to form a union and that he had
no idea that the meeting "would blend itself in someone else's purposes " or that
it would become a union meeting. The Trial Examiner is not blind to the
possibility of coincidence ; but many events 'shaped, into a well-known pattern,
make mere coincidence an unlikely possibility . Darold, about noon on Novem-
ber 11, arranged an employees ' meeting at the Stoneleigh Hotel. About noon
on November 11, Ferguson , the leading organizer of United Workers, was
informed of a meeting at the Stoneleigh for the purpose of organizing a union.
During the afternoon , Ferguson absented herself from the plant for 2 hours
during which time she telephoned Attorney Roberts concerning the-,formation of
a union. During the afternoon or early evening someone called Roberts from
Collins' suite at the Stoneleigh Hotel. Ferguson prepared a union petition and
had it with her at the meeting Collins discussed the different types of unions
and suggested obtaining legal advice if the employees desired a union of their
own. Harold purchased sandwiches for the refreshment of the employees. He
neglected to serve them until the highranking personnel were about to leave the
meeting. The meeting was held the night before the hearing on the Union's
petition for investigation and certification . The following day the hearing on
the petition was recessed several hours , and upon resumption United Workers
presented a motion to intervene . , Mere coincidence does not usually encompass
such fine ' detail. These and other facts disclosed by the record make it im-
possible to credit Harold ' s testimony in this respect . The -undersigned is con-
vinced and finds, that Harold knew that a union would, be , organized at the,
Stoneleigh' Hotelmeeting and- that he set-the stage precisely for that purpose.
- Four days after the initial organizational meeting of the employees, they
met again at the Baker Hotel. Here they changed the name of the organiza-
tion to its present name , elected permanent officers, including Foreman Hawkins
as president, adopted a constitution and bylaws , and approved a proposed
collective bargaining contract which was , to be presented to the respondent.
,'THE ARROWHEAD' RUBBER COMPANY OF TEXAS 1631
On November 16, just 5 days after the initial organizational meeting, the
proposed contract was presented to the -respondent. Two hours after the
contract, which awarded substantial benefits including exclusive recognition
and dues check-off to R. W. I. 0., was presented, the respondent signed it
without making a single change in its terms, relying upon a check of signatures
on an It. W. I. 0: petition against -employee signatures in the respondent's
possession. 'Subsequently, pursuant to the contract's provision for a check-off
and at the behest of Chief Accountant Cowsert, check-off authorizations were
solicited and obtained on the respondent's time and property. All this occurred
during the pendency of the Board's determination of the Union's claim to
represent the employees and in marked contrast to the respondent's failure
even to answer the Union's letter asking for recognition and collective
bargaining.
Without reference to all the details that could be mentioned, United Workers
and R. W. I 0 are subject to the fatal infirmity of employer domination and
support by reason of the following considerations: Assistant General Manager
Harold's sponsorship of the November 11 meeting; Collins' remarks concerning
labor organizations at that meeting; the participation of Chief Accountant
Cowsert and Foremen Mince,. Hawkins, and Knowles in the formation of the
organization ; the temporary vice presidency of Foreman Mince ; the permanent
presidency of Foreman Hawkins ; and the rapidity with which R. W. I. O.
was recognized and granted substantial concessions including exclusive recogni-
tion and check off of dues at a time when the Union's claim to representative
rights was pending Board determination and in marked contrast to the respond-
ent's opposition to the Union and its complete ignoring of the Union's request
for recognition.
Upon the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes
and finds that-the respondent sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the
formation of United Workers and contributed support to it; that R. W. I. O. is
the direct successor of United Workers and is the beneficiary of the impetus
and support the respondent gave to United Workers; that the respondent
interfered with and dominated the formation and administration of It. W. I. O.
and contributed support to it; and that by such conduct the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its-employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It is further found that the' contract dated November 16, 1943, between the
respondent and It. W. I. O. is an agreement made with an organization not
freely chosen by the respondent's employees as their collective bargaining
representative and constitutes an illegal interference with the exercise of the
rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The- undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in
Section III, B, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
respondent described in Section I 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 commerce and the free flow of
commerce. - -
V. THE REMEDY I
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices , it will be•recommended that it'cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD
It has been, found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of R. W. I. O. and has contributed support to.
it. The effect and consequences of the respondent's domination of, interference-
with, and support of R. W. I. 0., as well as the continuing recognition of
R. W. I. O. as the bargaining representative of its employees, constitutes a
continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of the rights guaranteed
to them in the Act. _ Because of the respondent's illegal conduct with regard to-
R. W. I. O. it is incapable of serving the respondent's employees as a genuine
collective bargaining agency. It will be recommended that the respondent dis-
establish and withdraw all recognition from R. W. I. O. as the representative
of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances;
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of em-
ployment. The contract dated November 16, 1943, between the respondent and,
R. W. I. 0., which by its terms is still in effect, has been found to be invalid
since it is a means whereby the respondent utilizes an employer-dominated
labor organization to frustrate self-organization and to defeat collective bar-
gaining by its employees. Moreover, it provides for exclusive recognition of
R. W. I. 0., although at the time the contract was entered into that organiza-
tion had not been designated by an uncoerced majority of the employees covered.
liy the contract as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining..
The, undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from
giving effect to this or any other contract with R. W. I. O. respecting rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment. Nothing in, these
recommendations, however, shall be deemed to require the respondent to vary
or abandon the wage rates or other substantive features of its relations with
the employees which the respondent may have established in conformity with
the contract, as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded =3
It has been found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of United Workers and contributed support
thereto. Although United Workers has been completely absoibed by R. W. I. O ,
the undersigned finds that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by a
foreclosure of the possibility of a resumption of United Workers' activities
through a requirement that the respondent disestablish United Workers. The
undersigned will so recommend.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CoNCLUsIONs OF LAW
1. International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and Rubber Workers Industrial Organization, unaffiliated, are labor organiza-,
tions, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act; United Workers Arrow-
head Company of Texas was, until the formation of Rubber Workers Industrial
Organization, an unaffiliated labor organization, within the meaning of Sectiou'
2 (5) of the Act. -
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
United Workers Arrowhead Company of Texas and Rubber Workers Industrial
23 National Licorice Co. v. N. L. R. B., 309 U. S. 350 , enf'g as mod . Matter of National
Licorice Company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America,
Local Union 405, Greater New York and Vicinity, 7 N. L. R. B. 537; N. L. R. B. v. Stackpole
Carbon Company, 105 F. ( 2d) 167 ( C. C. A. 3 ), enf'g as mod ., 6 N. L. R . B. 171, cert. den.;
308 U. S. 605.
THE ARROWHEAD RUBBER COMPANY ` OF TEXAS 1633
-Organization and by contributing support to them, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
.of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
.of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
, 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices ' affecting
-commerce , within the meaning of Section 2' (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
5 The respondent has not engaged in unfair , labor practices by surveillance
of the activities , meetings, or meeting places of the Union and the employees ; by
soliciting the employees or requiring employees to make reports concerning the
leadership or activities of employees on behalf of the Union ; or by requiring
employees to execute statements repudiating membership in the Union.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent , The Arrowhead Rubber Company of
'Texas, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Rubber Workers
Industrial Organization , or with the formation or administration of any other
labor organization of its employees , and from contributing financial or other
support to Rubber Workers Industrial Organization , or any other labor organ-
ization of its employees ;
(b) Giving effect to or performing the contract 'of November 16, 1943, with
-Rubber Workers Industrial Organization , or any extension or renewal ' thereof,
or to any other agreements , understandings , or arrangements entered into with
said organization ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or, coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form, join, or assist
labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
-choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar.
gaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
-effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Rubber Workers Industrial Organization
.as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
,respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
work, and other conditions of employment , and completely disestablishing Rubber
Workers Industrial Organization as such representative ;
(b) Completely disestablish United Workers Arrowhead Company of Texas
as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay. hours
,of work, and other conditions of employment ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant , and maintain for a
period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices
to its employees stating: ( 1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct
-from which it has been recommended that it cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a), (b), and ( c) of these recommendations ; and (2 ) that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and ( bl of these
recommendations ;
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify ' the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten- (10 )' days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint , insofar as it alleges that the
respondent kept under surveillance the activities , meetings , and meeting places
of the Union and the employees ; solicited the employees and required employees
to make reports concerning the leadership , and activities of employees on behalf
of the Union ; and required employees to execute statements repudiating their
membership in the Union , be dismissed.
' As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3-effective November 26, 1943, any
party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of
the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 32
of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington , D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections),
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the date of , the order transferring the case to the Board.
WrraIAM F . GUFFEY, Jr.,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 12, 1944.