The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1010 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.' and Local' 525,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, ' AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-2349. January -14, 1965,
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 26, 1964, Trial Examiner Laurence A.' Knapp issued
his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner 's Decision . The Respondent filed exceptions to ,the Trial
Examiner 's Decision.
Pursuant to the ' provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins]. - - I ,r>;.
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 affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision , the exceptions , and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings , conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order , the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc., its officers , agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Exam-
iner 's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE '
Following preliminary proceedings in accordance with the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , herein called the Act ,l this case came on for hearing before Trial
Examiner Laurence A. Knapp at Asheville, North Carolina , on June 1, 1964 . Whether
Respondent engaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, hereinafter
described , are the questions presented for decision.
Upon consideration of the entire record , including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT ; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find- that Respondent,, The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., is a retail enterprise which during the 12 months
'The charge herein was filed on February 7, 1964, and was thereafter duly served
on Respondent ; the complaint issued on March 25 , 1964; and Respondent answered on
March 27, 1964.
150 NLRB No. 102.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., INC. 1011
preceding issuance of the complaint had gross sales across State lines in excess of
$10,000,000. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
The Charging Party, Local 525, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In the latter part of January 1964 ,2 the Union undertook to organize the employees
of Respondent's stores in the city of Asheville , North Carolina . As an incident of
this organizing effort , the Union held a meeting for the employees concerned on the
evening of February 5 at an establishment in Asheville variously described in the
record as Home's Restaurant or Horne's Motor Lodge. So far as this record shows,
notice of this meeting was spread among the employees by word of mouth, and in the
days immediately preceding the prospective meeting it was the subject of discussion
among some employees while at their work.
The bulk of this case involves alleged conduct of supervisors of Respondent relative
to this meeting.
A. Supervisor J. T. Campbell
Campbell is an assistant superintendent with supervisory authority over several
stores in Asheville proper and the surrounding area, including the Patton Avenue
store in Asheville.
February 5, the day of the union meeting, was the day off for Andrew Jackson Lyles,
an employee of the Patton Avenue store , on the second floor of which is located the
office of Campbell . During the afternoon of that day, Lyles was informed over the
telephone by some supervisor that Campbell wished to see him . Lyles demurred about
appearing because he was in the process of moving his residence that day but the
supervisor with whom he talked told him to come to Campbell 's office anyway-that
Campbell wanted to talk with him.3
Lyles testified as follows in this paragraph concerning what transpired in his meeting
with Campbell . Campbell asked him if he was planning to attend the union meeting
that night . Lyles replied in the negative , stating that he was in the middle of moving
and thought he would not have time . Campbell went on to say that he would like
Lyles to go to the meeting to see who was there , what went on , and what was said.
Lyles reiterated that he did not think he would be able to attend , whereupon Campbell
desisted from his request that Lyles attend . Campbell then told Lyles that if he
disclosed to anyone what Campbell had said , Campbell would call him a liar so it
would not do Lyles any good to reveal this conversation to others.
I turn now to Campbell 's testimony concerning this incident . On his direct exami-
nation , Campbell , offering no explanation as to how his conversation with Lyles
happened to come about, stated that he asked Lyles if he had heard there was to be a
union meeting at Home 's Restaurant that night and that Lyles replied in the affirma-
tive ; that he then asked Lyles if he was going to attend tb see "what benefits they had
or anything" ; and that Lyles said he was moving and was not going to attend. Camp-
bell further testified that after Lyles related some amusing incident of his moving, he
excused Lyles and "That was it ." Campbell denied that he told Lyles he wished him
to attend the meeting , and, with respect to Lyles' testimony that he told Lyles he would
call him a liar if he reported Campbell 's remarks, Campbell first stated he did not
"remember" making that statement and then denied that he made it.
On cross-examination , Campbell admitted that Lyles had been called to come in but
denied that this was done at his request or that he knew why Lyles had been sent for.
He did admit that he had asked some five or six other employees that afternoon
whether they were going to attend the union meeting and, referring to Lyles' absence
that day, stated that "we give the opportunity to anybody to go to the meeting." On
redirect, Campbell was asked for a further explanation and then stated he did not
know whether Lyles had heard of the union meeting and that he thought any
employees not at work "should have the benefit " of attending the meeting . Finally,
under examination by the Trial Examiner , Campbell was asked on what basis he had
2 All dates herein refer to 1964.
3 With just which supervisor Lyles personally spoke over the telephone ( after an initial
message had concededly been left with his wife by Assistant Store Manager Smith) Is
somewhat uncertain under the pertinent testimony . But resolution of. this subsidiary
question is unnecessary , since Respondent 's witnesses conceded that Lyles was called to
come in by some supervisor at Campbell 's Instructions . There is nothing in the related
testimony which in any way reflects upon Lyles' credibility.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selected Lyles and the other employees for purposes of mentioning the union meeting
to them. Campbell's reply was that he just did this at random, that he did not "pick"
any of them, and that he did not call Lyles. He then admitted, however, that Lyles
had been called by some supervisor because he, Campbell, wished to talk to Lyles.
He further admitted that he did not suggest to the general body of employees that
they attend the meeting.
This review of Campbell's full testimony as it gradually unfolded through direct,
cross, redirect, and Trial Examiner questioning , marks Campbell as a rather artful
witness. His effort to put upon others the initiative for calling Lyles, in the face of
circumstances and his own later admissions establishing that the responsibility for this
initiative lay with him, shows that Campbell was disposed to quibble and spar concern-
ing the extent and nature of his connection with and participation in this incident, and
thus manifests a guilty conscience. For there was nothing improper in his having
sent for Lyles; what mattered was what took place when Lyles met with him.
Campbell's version of what then took place is inherently implausible. If, as Camp-
bell sought to establish, his purpose in talking to Lyles and the five or six' other
employees was merely to insure that the affected employees became informed concern-
ing'the Union's prospectus of benefits, such an aim would scarcely be'attained by his
speaking, at random, to a few employees,.and is scarcely compatible with the special
and insistent instructions by which Lyles, in particular, was brought in from his home
to meet with Campbell in person. An open announcement to all employees affected
would seem, under the circumstances, to have been the more appropriate course to
satisfy the broader and innocent end Campbell professed to be attempting to serve.
For these and related reasons, it seems clear that Campbell had some more particular
and pressing reason for desiring to speak to Lyles, and to do so in the privacy of his
office. Such a reason is offered by Lyles' testimony, which I credit. Accordingly, I
find that Campbell questioned Lyles as to Lyles' prospective attendance at the union
meeting and that this questioning had as its purpose, or in any case had as its necessary
effect, sounding out Lyles respecting his union activities, sympathies, and desires, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as charged in the complaint. I further find
that in the conversation Campbell importuned Lyles to engage on Respondent's behalf
in surveillance over those who attended and what transpired at the meeting, in further
violation of Section 8(a) (1).4
, B. Supervisor James A. Anderson
Herman Smith testified as follows' concerning a telephone call he received during
the afternoon of February 5 from Anderson, manager of the Patton Avenue store
where Smith worked. Anderson asked Smith if he knew about the union meeting that
night, and Smith replied that he did not. Andersonthen said such a meeting was being
held that night at Home's Restaurant and asked Smith if he was going. Smith replied
that he did not think he could attend, explaining (apparently to Anderson) that due to
illness in his family he had to do the laundry. Anderson then said "All right" and
hung up. Anderson did not testify.5
I find the facts as testified to by Smith and that, through Anderson's questioning of
Smith as to his intentions relative to attendance at the union meeting, Respondent
interrogated Smith concerning his union activities, sympathies, and desires in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) as charged.
C. Supervisor W. T. Beattie
Beattie (whose name is mistakenly given as Warren-K. Beatty in the complaint) is
an assistant superintendent of stores in the Asheville area, a position comparable to
that of Campbell (supra). The complaint charges that Beattie engaged in surveillance
over the union meeting of February 5. Evidence in support of this allegation was
given by two witnesses for the General Counsel. Some description of the meeting
place will facilitate an understanding of all pertinent testimony.
The meeting, lasting from about 8 to 10 p.m., was held in a private dining or meet-
ing room at Home's Restaurant. There was access to this room from another dining
room, known as the Crown Room, and there was access to the Crown Room, in turn,
* This latter unfair labor practice was not charged in the complaint but following a
request for clarification made by the Trial Examiner at the close of the General Counsel's
case, counsel for' the Geneial -Counsel 'stated, without objection by counsel for Respond-
ent, that he was' claiming such a violation. Thus this issue'was fully litigated on notice.
5 Anderson was in the hospital at the time of the hearing but Respondent did not at
hearing indicate that his testimony could not have been taken otherwise than by personal
appearance at the hearing.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., INC. 1013
from the outside. By use of a folding door or partition, the room used for the.Union's
meeting could be closed off from the Crown Room, but-to obtain a complete closure
was somewhat difficult because of the way the closing mechanism was working. While
the meeting was in progress, the folding door or partition failed to effect a complete
closure or complete partition between the two rooms, leaving an open gap of about
1 foot.
Employee,Lyles testified that about midway of the meeting, he observed Beattie in
the Crown Room, looking into the meeting room through this aperture with his head
turning from side to side. He placed Beattie about 1 foot away from the gap, and he,
Lyles, about 15 feet from Beattie. Lyles stated that he kept his'eyes on Beattie in this
position for about 5 seconds and then he, Lyles, shifted his gaze from Beattie to the
speaker who was addressing the meeting. When the meeting ended, Lyles testified, he
mentioned to the Union's president what he had seen but that this matter was already
under discussion and consequently, he testified, "I just said that I had seen him."
The General Counsel's other main witness in this connection .was a Mrs. Lillian
Freeman, hostess and cashier at Home 's Restaurant at this time. During a previous
period, Freeman had for some 11 years owned and operated a business near an
"A & P" store and was well-acquainted with Beattie.
Freeman testified as stated in this paragraph. She first noticed'Beattie and his wife
seated at a' table in the Crown Room, waiting for their food-order to be served, at
which time she spoke to them and served them coffee. Later, Beattie came up to pay
his check. At this juncture, Beattie either stated "that some of my people who worked
for A & P" were in the private dining room, and then said to her, "Do you know any
of them, Lillian?" She replied that she knew several by their faces but not-many, or.
not any, by their names. On Beattie's way back to his 'table, after he had paid his
check, he paused at the opening into the Union's meeting room and, standing as close
to the opening as he could, looked into the meeting room glancing from side to side
while looking into the room. Beattie so occupied himself for a few seconds and then
returned to the table where his wife was waiting. She did not see Mr. and Mrs. Beattie
depart from the restaurant but her duties kept her in regular- movement within and
beyond the Crown Room. She knew before the Beatties arrived that "A & P"
employees were present at the meeting but she did not know until after its termination
(sometime after the Beatties had left) that it was a union meeting , which she ascer-
tained from pamphlets she observed when the room was being cleaned. Her essential
testimony was not shaken on cross-examination.6
I tum now to a summary of Beattie's testimony. He testified that he and Mrs.
Beattie dined at restaurants most of the time, and most frequently at Buck's Restau-
rant. On this occasion, he determined upon Home's because it was a rainy evening
and the entrance to Home's had overhead protection not provided at Buck's. He
denied knowing that any "A & P union" meeting was being -held at Home's, denied
looking into the union meeting room, and denied seeing any A &,P employee while
at the restaurant. As to Freeman's testimony, which he had heard, he stated that
when paying his check he did not say to her but she said to him "some of your folks
are in here in a meeting"; that he then turned his head (meaning, apparently, in the
direction of the private room); that he may have but did not remember having asked
her who were in attendance; and that he then went directly back to his table and
escorted Mrs. Beattie from the restaurant.
In assessing the foregoing main body of relevant evidence, the testimony of
Freeman is entitled to paramount weight since she was a disinterested witness. More-
over, she impressed me as a person of considerable presence and an alert, intelligent,
and honest witness stating what she knew as accurately as she could recall and without
fear or favor. I credit her testimony.
It is a salient feature of that testimony that either in the form of a statement or a
question put to her by Beattie, he volunteered to her definite or qualified knowledge
that a meeting of Respondent's employees was proceeding in the adjoining room.?
6 On cross-examination, she said that while it was possible that she was the first to
make reference to the "A & P" employees being in the private room when Beattie came
up to her to pay the check, she as "almost positive" that this first mention was made
by Beattie, and completely positive that he asked her if she knew any of the employees
in attendance and that Beattie then engaged in his observation into the meeting room.
7 As previously stated, according to Freeman, Beattie either stated that, or inquired
whether, some "A & P" employees were assembled in the private room. But even if he
used the question form, what he said implied' that he had some reason to believe that
employees were gathered there.
In this connection, I find, as the weight of Freeman's testimony indicates, that Beattie,
rather than she, first made reference to the existence of the gathering of employees:
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I so find, and further find that he thereupon asked her to identify those in attendance
and, when she could not do so by name , he proceeded to look into the meeting room
in the manner Freeman and employee Lyles described.
I further find that Beattie knew in advance of the meeting and its character. His
prior knowledge is indicated by his initial remarks to Freeman . Moreover, colleagues
of his on Respondent's Asheville supervisory force were aware of the meeting and
had that afternoon taken steps designed to inform Respondent concerning who might
attend and what might transpire at the meeting. Furthermore, Beattie shared with
Campbell top supervisory authority over the stores in the city of Asheville, the ones to
which the Union was limiting its organizational efforts,8 and what Campbell knew it
is reasonable to infer Beattie did also.9
These circumstances, combined with what Beattie actually said and did while at
Home's Restaurant, persuade me, as I find, that Beattie visited Home's Restaurant
for the purpose of engaging in and there did engage in surveillance over the union
meeting. By his conduct in so doing, Respondent engaged in a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. Frank W. Alexander
Alexander was at the relevant time manager of the meat department of the Biltmore
Avenue store in Asheville. There were four employees under his supervision, includ
ing Ruth Rice, Geneva Boone, and Eldo Reed. Alexander's immediate supervisor
was Grover Thompson, supervisor of the meat departments of the stores in the Ashe-
ville area, including the Biltmore Avenue and the six other stores in the city to which
the Union's organizational effort extended. Excluding its meat department; the Bilt-
more Avenue store was one of those under Beattie's supervision 10
Rice and Boone gave substantially the same testimony. It is that during the morn-
ing of February 6, the day following the union meeting, Alexander told them (while
he and they were together) that Thompson had told him that Beattie had said that
three employees in Alexander's department had been at the meeting; and that Alex-
ander named the two ladies and employee Reed as the three. All three, in fact, had
attended the meeting.
Thompson's testimony is that when he appeared at this store that morning, "some
people" at the front of the store ",were discussing the union meeting of.the preceding
evening, and:
somebody said to me, he said, "Did you know you had 3 from the meat
department of Biltmore Avenue at the meeting last night," and I said, "No," I
did not have that information.
Thompson testified that he then spoke to Alexander as follows:
I said, "Frank, did you realize that you had 3 employees at the meeting last
night," and he says, "what meeting," and I said, "Do you mean to tell me you
didn't know there was a union meeting last night," and he said, "I did not." I
said , "Well, there was and you are supposed to have had 3 representatives there."
Thompson denied receiving this information from Beattie, with whom, he testified,
he had had no conversation until later on February 6.
Alexander confirmed that he told the ladies that Thompson had told him that three
of his employees had attended the meeting. He denied, however, that Thompson had
mentioned to him, or that he had mentioned to the ladies, the name of Beattie.
Whether Beattie's name was mentioned, and whether Beattie was Thompson's source
of information, are immaterial points of fact. What is material is the two ladies were
told that their presence at the union meeting the night before was known to their
employer. Nothing that was said to the employees indicated that this information had
reached Respondent's attention in any innocent way, or that the fact of their attend-
ance was of no moment to Respondent. Rather, what Alexander told the ladies and
8 Respondent has seven stores in the city proper, five of which were under Campbell's
and two under Beattie 's authority.
e The fact that Beattie had been heavily preoccupied in the days preceding and includ-
ing February 5 with remodeling a store some 25 miles distant from Asheville, stressed
in Beattie's testimony, has no tendency to establish any absence of communication between
him and supervisory colleagues of his who were keenly interested in the subject of the
union meeting.
10 The supervisory authority of Messrs. Campbell and Beattie embraced the grocery and
produce operations but not the meat departments of the Asheville area stores under their
respective jurisdictions.
3 'Later, Thompson identified the store manager as among these "people"; he could not
recall the others:
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., INC. 1015
what prompted him to say it (the report from his superior which he passed on to them)
was calculated to give them the impression that they had done something both wrong
and in secret, but which Respondent nevertheless had ferreted out. Since employees
normally and for good reason surround their attendance at such organizing meetings
with secrecy or privacy so far as their employer is concerned, these ladies were
entitled, absent any other explanation to them as to how this information had been
obtained, to believe that someone on Respondent's behalf had kept a watch over the
meeting and noted their attendance. By thus creating in them the impression that
Respondent had engaged in such surveillance, Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
E. Alfred Smith
Smith was assistant manager of the Patton Avenue store at the time of the incident
dealt with below. Employee Aldon Bradley testified that on a date which I find was
Friday, February 7, 2 days after the union meeting, Smith asked him what he thought
about the Union; and that, in reply, he said to Smith that the Union had its good and
its bad points. Smith testified that he had a conversation with Bradley on this date,
"assumed" that the Union was its subject, and "maybe" asked Bradley "how he felt."
Hence, I find that Smith made the inquiry as Bradley described it. Smith's inquiry,
while the organization campaign was in progress, as to Bradley's attitude toward the
Union was unlawful interrogation, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Ill. THE REMEDY
The unfair labor practices call for a corresponding cease-and-desist order, and, as
appropriate affirmative relief, a requirement that Respondent post a suitable notice at
its stores in the city of Asheville, where are employed the employees affected by the
unfair labor practices.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogation of its employees respecting their union activities, sympathies,
and desires; by seeking to induce an employee to act as an informer respecting a meet-
ing of the Union; by giving employees the impression that their union activities were
under surveillance; and by engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its
employees, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, on the entire record as a
whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent,
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees respecting their union activities, sympathies, or
desires.
(b) Inducing or attempting to induce any employee to act as an informer respect-
ing the union activities of its employees.
(c) Engaging in surveillance, or giving its employees the impression that it is
engaging or has engaged in surveillance, of or over the union activities of its
employees.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with; restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at all its stores in the city of Asheville, North Carolina, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 11, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, be posted immeditaely upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
12 In the event that this Order is adopted by the Board, the words "as Ordered by"
shall be substituted for "as Recommended by a Trial Examiner of" in the notice. In the
further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a United States Court of Appeals,
the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order of" shall
be inserted immediately following "as Ordered by."
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.l3
11 In the event that this Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read, "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in
the National Labor Relations Act:
ALL OUR EMPLOYEES have the right to join or assist Local 525, Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor union . They also have the right not to join or assist any labor union.
WE WILL NOT question any of our employees regarding their attendance or
prospective attendance at any union meeting or otherwise coercively question
them concerning their union activities , sympathies , or desires.
WE WILL NOT request any employee to inform us concerning the attendance
of our employees or what may take place at any union meeting, and WE WILL
NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings of our employees or create the
impression that we are engaging or have engaged in such surveillance.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building , 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina , Telephone
No. 724-8356, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Local Freight Drivers, Local No. 208 , International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer-
ica; and Steel , Paperhouse & Chemical Drivers & Helpers
Local No. 578, IBT and Les Brockman . Case No. 21-CC-755-1.
January 14, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 10, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner 's Decision . The Respondents filed no exceptions.
150 NLRB No. 104.