The S. Frieder & Sons Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

III the Matter of THE S. FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY and UNITED CANNERY,
AGRICUTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos. 4-R-1459 and 4-C-1431-Decided June 25, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election,"
executed June 9, 1944, by the S. Frier & Sons Company, herein called the
respondent , and by United Cannery, Agricultural , Packing & Allied Work-
ers of America , CIO, herein called the Union , an election was held on June
23, 1944, among the employees of the respondent at its plant in Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania , to determine whether the Union was the majority
representative of the respondent 's employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining . Having lost the election , the Union, on June 26 , 1944, filed
Objections with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region , alleging that
the respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices which had
affected the outcome of the election . The Regional Director investigated the
Objections , reported to the Board that they raised substantial and material
issues, and recommended that a hearing be held. On June 26, 1944, the
Union filed with the Board a charge alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in unfair lalior practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the
Act On September 7, 1944, the Board issued an Order , consolidating the
above proceedings and directing that a hearing be held on the Objections
and on the charges of unfair labor practices . On September 21, 1944, a
complaint was issued by the Regional Director alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section.8 (1) of the Act. On September 23, 1944, the respond-
ent filed its answer in which it denied the commission of the unfair labor
practices alleged. A hearing was held before a Trial Examiner in Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania , from October 3 , to October 10, 1944, in which the
Board, the respondent , and the Union participated by their representatives.
During the course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made rulings on
62 N. L. R. B., No. 108.
880
THE S. FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY 881
niolions and on objections to the aclnussion"of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On November 24, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Oral argu-
nient, in which the respondent and the Union participated, was held before
the Board in Washington, D. C., on June 5, 1945.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs filed by the respondent, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
iner with the modifications noted below.
We find that the statements of Foreladies Tillie Kader' and Jennie Saia
to apprentice mechanic, Harry Andes, on or about May 24, 1944, in sub-
stance, that the Union was "no good," that its fees were excessive, and that
the employees were throwing their money away, together with the respond-
ent's acquiescence in the anti-union demonstrations, its posting on the day
of the election of a notice of approval by the War Labor Board of a vaca-
tion plan, and its sponsorship of a party at the conclusion of the election,
as set forth more fully in the Intermediate Report, constitute a course of
conduct which interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.'"
Since the record establishes that the respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices prior to the election, we find that the election was not an expres-
sion of the free will of an uncoerced majority; it therefore should be set
aside, and we shall so order. We shall not, however, direct another election
until such time as the Regional Director advises us that the effects of the
unfair labor practices have been dissipated.
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 S. Frieder & Sons Company, Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
I Erroneously called "Hader " in the Intermediate Report.
2 Witnesses other than Andes, who testified to the statements of the foreladies referred to above,
attributed anti-union statements to various supervisors . The Trial Examiner did not comment upon
their testimony , except to reject it generally. Since neither the attorney for the Board nor the
Union excepted to the Trial Examiner 's treatment of such testimony , we shall not consider whether
the respondent engaged in any unfair labor practice by the statements of such supervisors.
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to joint or assist United Cannery, Agricultural,
Packing and Allied Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engaged in concerted activities, for the purpose 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 Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post immediately at its plant in WVilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, copies
of the notice attached hereto, Marked "Appendix A " Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, he posted by the re-
,pondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive clays thereafter, in conspicuous places, 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, de-
faced, or covered by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing,
within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps the respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith
ACID IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on June 23, 1944,
aniong the employees of The S Frieder & Sons Company, Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania, be, and it hereby is, set aside
MR GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order
APPENDIX A
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.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist United Cannery, Agricultural Packing
&: Allied Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.. All our employees are free
THE S. FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY 883
to become or, remain members of this union, or any other labor organi-
zation
S FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY (Employer)
(Employer)
Dated
By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof, and
ntu',t not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Ill- Herman Lacai us, lot the Board
Ltchtig & Mossier, by Mr. Herbert A Mossier, of New York, New York, for the
respondent
Mr. Joseph M Walsh, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for the Union
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on June 26, 1944, by United Cannery Agricultural, Pack-
ing and Allied Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated September
21, 1944, against The S. Frieder & Sons Company,' herein called the respondent.
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)-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 were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that
the respondent in and about the months of May and June 1944, by certain of its
officers. agents, representatives, servants, and employees, had interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced, and was interfering with restraining, and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in that it
urged, persuaded, and warned its employees not to loin or assist the Union, in that it
interrogated employees as to their membership and activities in the Union; in that
it disparaged and criticized the Union; in that on or about June 22, 1944, the day
before a consent election was conducted by the Board,` it posted notices announcing
approval by the War Labor Board of the granting of vacations with pay: in that it
permitted and acquiesced in an anti-union campaign and anti-union demonstrations
by its employees on respondent's time and property ; in that it instructed employees
to vote "No" at the said Board election on June 23, 1944; and in that it offered and
granted inducements to employees for voting "No" at said election and for not
becoming members of or engaging in activities on behalf of the Union
i It was stipulated at the hearing that "The S Frieder & Sons Company " is the correct name
of the respondent and that the pleadings be so amend -- d The pleadings originally named the respond-
ent as "S . Frieder & Sons Company "
Matter of the S Frieder & Sons Company and United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing &
Allied Workers of Anic,iis, CIO, Case No 4-R-1459 In this matter the union filed objections
to the election conducted on June 2; 1944 By ns order dated September 7, 1944, the Board duected
that a hearing be held on the objections to the -election and ordered that Case No 4-R-1459 and
Case No 4 -C-1431 be consolidated -
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about September 23, 1944, the respondent filed an answer in which it denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices, and also filed a motion for a bill of
particulars. This motion was granted in part and the Board complied with the ruling
of the Trial Examiner by filing a bill of particulars, dated September 29, 1944.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on October
3, 4, 5, 6, and 10, 1944, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel. The Union appeared through its representative. All parties participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on-the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent renewed its motion for a bill of
particulars as to that part of its original motion which had been denied. The motion
vvas denied At the close of the Board's case the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of proof, and the motion was renewed at the close of the whole
case. Both motions were denied At the close of the case, the attorney for the Board
moved to conform the pleadings to the proof in regard to formal variances. The
motion was granted without objection
At the close of the hearing, the attorneys for the Board and the respondent pre-
sented oral argument on the record before the undersigned Pursuant to permission
granted at the hearing, the respondent filed a brief. None of the other parties filed
briefs although afforded an opportunity to do so
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 S Frieder & Sons Company is an Ohio corporation, engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale and distribution of cigars, with plants located in Wilkes-Barre and Kulp-
mont, Pennsylvania. A subsidiary of the respondent operates a plant at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The instant case is concerned only with the Wilkes-Barre plant and at
the times under consideration herein this plant employed approximately 340 persons
The respondent annually uses over $50,000.00 worth of raw materials, principally
tobacco, at its Wilkes-Barre plant. Over 75 percent of said raw materials is shipped
to the plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The respondent
annually sells over $100,000 00 worth of its product from its Wilkes-Barre plant, over
50 percent of which is shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
At the hearing the respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, CIO, is a
labor organization which admits to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Up and until May 24, 1944, the Union had not attempted to organize the employees
at respondent's Wilkes-Barre plant. On May 24, a number of respondent's employees
participated in a strike. The Union learned of the strike and through its representa-
tives persuaded the employees to meet at a hall engaged for the purpose At the
meeting the advantages of membership in the Union wei e explained to the employees.
TIIE S. FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY 885
It appears that a number of the employees joined the Union at the meeting or shortly
thereafter. The employees returned to work at the regular starting times on May 26
On June 2, 1944, the Union filed with the Board a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives On June 9, 1944, the respondent and the Union entered
into an agreement for consent election Pursuant to this agreement, an election was
conducted by the Board at the respondent's Wilkes-Barre plant on June 23. 1944
The Union lost the election.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On about May 24, 1944, Harry Andes apprentice mechanic, had a conversation
concerning the Union with Forelady Tillie Hader' During this conversation Hader
said that the Union was "no good", that the Union's initiation fees were too high,
that the Union charged $5, and that the employees were throwing their money away.
Andes had subsequent conversations with Hader along the same line Jennie Saia,
forelady, also on several occasions told Andes that the Union was "no good".'
Starting on May 29, 1944, and on a number of occasions thereafter, representatives
of the Union and employees who were active on behalf of the Union distributed
leaflets to employees at the employees' entrance to the plant.
It is undisputed that while these leaflets were being distributed to employees who
were entering or leaving the plant during the change in shifts or on other occasions
when representatives of the Union were present in front of the employees' entrance,
some five to six employees who worked in departments immediately adjacent to the
entrance staged continuous anti-union demonstrations. At the time of the change in
shifts, the leaflets were distributed from about 3 :30 p m until about 4 p m or shortly
thereafter. During almost all of this time, the demonstrators stood just inside the
entrance on respondent's property, and yelled orsjeered at those distributing the
leaflets. They made remarks derogatory to the Union and their language was at
times obscene. They told employees entering or leaving the plant not to accept any
leaflets and grabbed leaflets from the hands of employees The distributors of the
leaflets did not provoke these demonstrations and except for one or two occasions
they made no retort to the remarks of the demonstrators' The demonstrations took
place during the working time of the demonstrators, and the plant entrance was
about 20 or 30 feet from their department or place of work Clyde Birth, plant
superintendent, supervised the work of these employees since they did not have any
forelady over them.
On about May 31, Frank Vrataric, field representative of the Union, at a meeting
3 The respondent contends that it is not bound by statements to employees made by Hader
and other foreladies The undersigned finds no merit in this contention Aside from the fact that
the consent election agreement excludes foremen and forladies from the appropriate unit as super-
visory employees , the record in the case conclusively shows that they had charge of and were
responsible for the work of the employees under then
4 Andes testified to the above statements by Hader and Saia and the undersigned credits his testi-
mony in this connection Andes further testified that he worked on May 24, the first day of the
strike , that he joined the Union later on the same day, and that he subsequently campaigned dur-
ing working hours against the Union Both Hader and Saia denied the statements attributed to them
by Andes.
cThe above facts were testified to by witnesses for the Boaid and the undersigned credits their
testimony in this connection The employees who were mainly responsible for the demonstrations
were identified by witnesses for the Board and were called as witnesses by the respondent In their
testimony they did not contradict the testimony of the Board ' s witnesses in any material respects
They all admitted standing in the entrance for considerable periods of time Some admitted making
remarks to the distributors of the leaflets while others denied they made any demonstration other
than to stand in the entrance They further testified that the representatives of the Union made
remarks to them as they stood in the entrance. -
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between representatives of the respondent and the Union informed Alexander Frie-
der, vice president of respondent, of the above 4nti-union demonstrations 0 On about
June 6, Carmen Parente and Vrataric were distributing leaflets in front of the
employees' entrance and an anti-union demonstration was in progress. Birth was
standing on a truck which was about 20-feet distance from the entrance Birth asked
Parente for a leaflet and Parente complied with the request Referring to the demon-
stration, Vrataric then said to Birth, "Did you see this? Why don't you stop this?"
It does not appear that Birth made any answer.' On at least two or three occasions,
Birth stood behind and watched the employees as they were demonstrating against
the Union and he did nothing at the time to stop them' On or about June 9 or 10,
Parente telephoned Birth and complained about the anti-union demonstrations and
on about June 15, at another meeting between representatives of the Union and the
respondent Vrataric again complained to Frieder concerning the demonstrations 0
After Parente telephoned Birth, the demonstrations ceased for a few (lays but were
thereafter resumed with greater vigor 10
During the morning of June 23, and befoie the election, the respondent posted
the following notice on all bulletin boards in the plant 11
NOTICE.
TO ALL EMPLOYEES:
VACATIONS GRANTED!
Our application to the National War Labor Board made April 1, 1944 has been
approved and vacations with pay have been granted in accordance with our
application. °
THE S. FRIEDER & SONS CO
After the voting on June 23, the ballots were counted in the plant cafeteria
Frieder was present during the counting and shortly after the results were known
he left the cafeteria, entering,the hallway leading from the employees' entrance to
the plant. A number of employees were standing in the hallway and it appears that
some or all of them congratulated Frieder on the outcome of the election. Frieder
suggested to the employees that a party be held at the Hotel Reddington or the Hotel
Sterling but the employees replied that they did not want to go to the hotels as they
6 Vrataric testified without contradiction to this conversation with Frieder
T Parente and Vrataric testified to the above incident and conversation involving Birth and the
undersigned credits their testimony in this connection Birth admitted that he asked foi a ]eaflet
but denied that any demonstration was in progress
8 Marjorie Rowland and Mary Kossitch testified that they saw Birth standing behind the demon-
strators and the undersigned credits their testimony in this connection . Birth admitted that on sev-
eral occasions he had seen employees standing at the entrance but testified that he "did not hear
anything going on." He further testified that when he caught these employees standing in the
entrance he warned them individually; that he warned one girl about 3 or 4 times; and that he
warned the others about twice each.
6 Parente and Vrataric testified to these complaints without contradiction. Birth testified that he
warned the employees involved after the complaints had been registered.
11 Parente testified without contradiction that he told Birth that the demonstrations would have
to stop or the Union would file unfair labor practice charges with the Board
11 Frieder testified that the War Labor Board had notified the respondent on May 25, 1944, that
its application had been granted and that the employees were not notified at that time because of
the strike
THE S. FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY 887
were not dressed and that they would rather have it in the cafeteria's A party which
was attended by about 150 employees was then held in the cafeteria and the respond-
ent paid for all the food and refreshments." Employees who were working on the
night shift left their work and joined the party. They did not return to work that
night but they were paid by the respondent for the full hours of the shift
Concluding findings
The undersigned finds that the statements made by Hader and Saia to Anders consti-
tute interference, restraint, and coercion.
The undersigned further finds that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7
of the Act in that it permitted on its time and property anti-union demonstrations,
in that it posted, shortly before the election was scheduled to be held, a notice that
vacations with pay had been granted, and in that it suggested and paid for a party to
celebrate the loss of the election by the Union.
It is undisputed that the respondent knew of the anti-union demonstration. Still
the only action taken by the respondent was to constantly warn the employees in-
volved that the Company did not approve of such conduct. The employees were not
docked in pay for the time they spent in standing in the entrance during demonstra-
tions nor were they otherwise punished for their supposed disobedience to Birth's
orders. Only one reasonable conclusion can be reached under the circumstances, namely,
the respondent approved of these anti-union demonstr,-tions. The facts surrounding
these demonstrations certainly rouse suspicions as to whether the respondent itself
instigated the demonstrations, but the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support
such a finding. However, the resopondent was under a duty to stop the anti-union
demonstrations and, accordingly, its failure to do so clearly constitutes interference,
restraint, and coercion.
The posting of the notice concerning vacations clearly was for the purpose of influ-
encing employees to vote against the Union and the undersigned so finds 14 No other
reason can be assigned for such action. Permission had been granted by the War Labor
Board on about May 25. The respondent, however, did not see fit to post the notice
until June 23. Surely, after that length of time the posting of the notice could have
been delayed another day
The party after the election is merely an expression of the respondent's -attitude
towards the election. When the Union lost, Frieder openly accepted congratulations
as though he or the Company had been a candidate at the election against the Union
To show his appreciation to the employees for voting down the Union, he suggested
and paid for the party. There can be no doubt that the party further hurt the prestige
12 Eleanor Fowler testified to the above conversation between Frieder and the employees and the
undersigned credits her testimony . Frieder admits that he asked employees to join him at a hotel for
a drink but his testimony indicates that the conversation was after the party had started . His testi-
mony, in substance, is that the party started without his suggestion or knowledge, and that he joined
the party after it had started The Board contends that this party was planned in advance but the
undersigned does not find any evidence to support this contention.
>e Frieder testified that the employees took the food without permission and that the respondent
later made good the loss to the concessionaire . As noted above, the undersigned has found that
Frieder suggested the party to the employees. Moreover , it is not reasonable to suppose that employ-
ees would enter a plant cafeteria and take food without permission , especially when company officials
are present.
14 Although one witness for the Board testified that the notice was posted on June 22, the evidence
conclusively shows that it was in fact posted on June 23 The evidence further shows that employees
on the night shift did not see the notice before voting
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Union or that the employees, if previously uncertain, no longer had any doubt
concerning their employer's attitude towards the Union.
No findings have been made herein on other testimony in the case either for the
reason that the undersigned does not credit the witnesses or finds that the credible
facts related do not constitute interference. For example, there is testimony by
one employeee that Forelady Margaret Naddeo told employees in a loud voice to
vote against the Union as they were lined up and ready to proceed to the polling
place. Naddeo denied the statement and the undersigned credits her denial Undoubt-
edly, the Board would have been able to produce more than one witness if Naddeo
had in fact made such a statement to assembled employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion 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
Since it has been found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the righ ts 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
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
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, The S. Frieder & Sons Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from, in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to'self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, 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 protection, as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action \ihicli the undersinged finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about its establishment located
at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
THE S. FRIEDER & SONS COMPANY 889
secutive days from the date of posting notices to all its employees stating that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease
and desist in paragraph 1 of these i ecommendations
(b) File with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region on or before ten (10)
(lays from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in
detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the foregoing
recommendations
It is also recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) clays 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 Rela-
tions Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, 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, Wash-
ington, 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.
Dated November 24, 1944.
JOHN H. EADIE
Trial Examiner