Tyler Pipe and Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 1187 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

TYLER PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 1187
Tyler Pipe and Foundry Company and Raymond Quarles. Case
No. 16-CA-1328. August 24, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 22, 1960, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions,,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and pursuant to,
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Tyler Pipe and Foundry Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging concerted activity by refusing to hire applicants
for employment because of union or concerted activities, or otherwise
discriminating in any other manner against any of its employees or
applicants for employment in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of their employment because of
their union or concerted activities.
(b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Members Rodgers, Leedom,
and Fanning].
2 We make the following corrections of inadvertent errors appearing in the Intermediate
Report which do not, however , affect the ultimate conclusions :
Chelf stated that there was no crane operator 's job available on the day Quarles applied
for work, rather than there was no job then available.
Quarles' starting wage scale as a laborer was the same as the starting wage scale of
machine shop trainees , that is, $1 25 an hour rather than $1.35 an hour.
132 NLRB No. 113.
614913-62-vol. 132-76
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Raymond Quarles in the manner set forth in that
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" for any
loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's dis-
crimination against him.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, • all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to, analyze and compute the amount of
backpay due.
(c) Post at its plant in Tyler, Texas, the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken _
by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or'
covered by other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from engaging in con-
certed activity, by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them
in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Raymond Quarles for any loss of pay
suffered by, him as a result of the discrimination against him in
refusing to hire 'him because he was involved in a labor dispute.
All our employees are free to become,or remain members, or to re-
frain from becoming or remaining members, of any labor organiza-
tion. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
TYLER PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 1189
went, or any term or condition of employment, against any employee
because of membership in, or activity on behalf of, any labor
organization.
TYLER PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated- --------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Issue
Whether the Respondent refused to hire an applicant for employment because of
his involvement in a labor dispute or whether the applicant was not hired because
of lack of requisite qualifications.
Upon the entire record, there are hereby made the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Raymond Quarles , the Charging Party , filed a charge on January 29 , 1960, with
the National Labor Relations Board against the Respondent , Tyler Pipe and Foundry
Company. The Regional Director , acting for the General Counsel , issued a com-
plaint on March 11, 1960 , alleging Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat . 136) which provides that it is unlawful for
an employer to discriminate against an employee "in regard to hire or tenure of
employment- :..." The Respondent filed its answer on March 22 , 1960, alleging:
that when Raymond Quarles applied for a position he gave his qualifica-
tions in an application . Respondent did not hire him and continues to refuse
to offer employment to him in the machine shop , for the reason that it has no
opening therein and the man who was hired at the time in the machine shop
instead of Quarles was eminently more qualified in past training and experience
to take the position than was said Raymond Quarles, particularly in view of the
fact that Raymond ,Quarles had no qualifications whatsoever for hiring in the
machine shop, .. .
On November 9, 1959, when Raymond Quarles made application to Respond-
ent, he signed a written application form in which he stated that he had been
a crane operator for Lone Star Steel Company for a period of ten years, and
the only other jobs that he listed were : drill press operator for one -month at
Loma Plastic in Fort Worth , and as a laborer for Delta Engineers in Houston
for a period of two months and twelve days, and as a laborer with Brown &
Root for a period of twenty-eight days . Furthermore , Mr. Quarles , at the time
he applied , made it clear that he was interested in obtaining a position as a
trainee in the machine shop and was not interested in a laborer's job. Respond-
ent does not have , and has never had , any classification of trainee in the machine
shop for which Quarles possessed the necessary qualifications . The operation
of a crane is no experience at all for running a machine in Respondent's ma-
chine shop , nor is the other short periods of experience listed in his application,
and Respondent says that Raymond Quarles doesn 't have any qualifications
whatsoever for a position in the machine shop.
Furthermore , on March 16 , 1960 , Respondent . offered [Quarles] em-
ployment as a laborer at $1.25 per hour, and he accepted said offer , and is now
working for Respondent as a laborer.
A hearing was held in Tyler , Texas, before Henry S. Sahm , the duly designated
Trial Examiner . Ruling was reserved upon the motion of the Respondent to dis-
miss the proceeding and is hereby ruled upon in accordance with the findings and
conclusions made herein . The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which
have been given full consideration.
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Tyler Pipe and Foundry Company, a Texas corporation, located in
Tyler, Texas, is engaged in the manufacture of soil pipe and fittings. During the
year 1959, Respondent purchased raw materials consisting principally of scrap metal
valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than $50,000 worth was shipped in
interstate commerce to the plant from points outside the State of Texas. During the
same period, Respondent sold products consisting principally of soil pipe and fittings,
valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than $50,000 worth was shipped in
interstate commerce from its plant to points outside Texas. No jurisdictional issue
is involved in this proceeding as Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. It is found, therefore, that Respondent is subject to
the jurisdiction of the Board.
If. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The testimony
Raymond Quarles, the Charging Party and alleged discriminatee, applied for a
job with Respondent, Tyler Pipe and Foundry Company, on November 9, 1959. He
was interviewed by Jack D. Chelf, of Respondent's personnel staff, who testified
that his "primary duty is the employment of personnel in the plant." Chelf gave
Quarles an application form which he filled out and on the basis of the information
in the application, Chelf interviewed Quarles.' At the time of the interview, Chelf
testified, "We had only one job available which was for a machine operator in the
machine shop." 2
Quarles' application indicated he had some machine operating experience so Chelf
decided to refer him to Paul F. Lilly, machine shop foreman,3 where vacancies
existed for machine shop trainee jobs. During the course of Lilly interviewing
Quarles, reference was made by Lilly to the information in Quarles' written applica-
tion that the "reason for leaving" his last place of employment, Lone Star Steel
Company, where he was a crane operator, was a "labor dispute." Quarles testified
that Lilly said to him, "The only bad thing I can see is how come you left the Lone
Star? . I told him they had a wildcat strike and I never had went back to work.
He said he thought that was settled. I said as far as I know it is.. . I told him
that I had personally talked to Mr. E. B. Germany [president of Lone Star Steel
Company] . and he told me that he would give me a recommendation if I
wanted it but it would be in [the letter] of recommendation that I was misled in a
wildcat strike. And I told him I could get him one. He said, `Well, we [would]
like to have one.' "
Quarles obtained a letter dated November 11, 1959, from E. B. Germany, the
president of Lone Star Steel, where he was employed for 10 years, addressed to the
president of Respondent Company, which he brought to Chelf about November 16.
This letter reads as follows:
Mr. Raymond Quarles has been in to see me and tried to work out a program
whereby he could get forgiveness for his activities in the 1957 strike at our
plant.
We have sought someway to try and bring him back into the plant, but be-
cause of the litigation and the threat of unfair labor practices my attorneys
have refused to allow me to work out anything with him.
I am thoroughly convinced, however, that he is sincere in his statement that
he has learned his lesson and will not be guilty of such conduct again. He says
he was misled by people whom he thought were his friends, but he has learned
better. He was one of the 200 that the Arbitrator allowed us to discharge, and
whom the Union are now suing us to have re-instated.
It is found that Chelf is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act for the following reasons. His primary duties, to quote him, were employment of
personnel and "placing the people on jobs that are open in the plant." In performing
this function, Chelf testified that he interviews all applicants first, screens them, eliminat-
ing those he believes not qualified, and referring those who pass his screening test to
department heads The final decision as to whom shall be hired is made jointly by him-
self and the department supervisor.
2 See footnote 11, infra.
It was stipulated that Lilly was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act.
TYLER PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 1191
I am very sympathetic to these 200, whom the Union has apparently deserted,
at least that is what he and the others tell me.
If you could do anything for him on his promise of behaving himself and
being a good worker, I would appreciate it very much.
After Chelf finished reading the letter, he said, according to Quarles: "'It looks
pretty good. It is a better recommendation than our company will give you.' He
said he just did not have anything right now." 4
Quarles then contacted his Congressman, Lindley Beckworth, on or about Decem-
ber 7, at his office in Gladewater, Texas, and requested his help in obtaining employ-
ment with the Respondent Company. Congressman Beckwith wrote on December
7, 1959, to Tom R. Harvin, an official of the Respondent Company, and a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act. The letter reads as follows:
Please note the enclosure. Mr. Quarles is highly recommended to me. Any
consideration you can give him will be appreciated.
It is my understanding Mr. Gene Germany wrote you a letter November 1
on this case.
Please return.
Upon receiving this letter, Harvin, assistant personnel manager, spoke to Chelf
who gave him Quarles' personnel file which included the letter from E. B. Germany,
Quarles' former employer at Lone Star Steel Company. Harvin, using Respondent's
letterhead, office, and secretarial help, dictated a reply to Congressman Beckworth
on December 10, 1959, as follows:
I appreciate very much your interest in Mr. Quarles. Mr. Quarles contacted
us some time in November, and at the same time delivered a letter from Mr.
Germany which was written in his behalf.
We understand from Mr. Germany that Mr. Quarles took quite an active
part in the strike two years ago at Lone Star, however, Mr. Germany is of the
opinion that Mr. Quarles has repented for his activity at that time. As you
know, Lindley, we are getting larger and must be particularly careful with any-
one who might be an agitator. That is why I have said to you many times, I can
not go along with the Union view point. So many good men get caught in
their web.
I would appreciate anything you might be able to furnish us in regards to
Mr. Quarles. If we can be convinced that he has no more connection with the
Union and would not come into our plant and agitate, we might have a spot
for him.
Quarles was offered a job as a laborer by Respondent by a letter dated March 16,
1960, which he accepted, and he went to work on March 21.5 At the time of the
hearing he had been promoted to the position of a drag line trainee.
Respondent's contention, asserted for the first time at the hearing and not in its
answer,6 that Harvin's letter to Congressman Beckworth was a personal communica-
tion and, therefore, not binding upon Respondent because it was written in Harvin's
individual capacity is rejected for the following reason. Harvin was assistant per-
sonnel manager of Respondent. Underneath his signature on the letter to Congress-
man Beckworth was his title "Assistant Personnel Manager." In such capacity, he
was answering Congressman Beckworth's request regarding Quarles' application for
a job with Respondent. As assistant personnel director, it was one of Harvin's duties
to handle such matters. His reply to Congressman Beckworth, therefore, is binding
upon Respondent.
B. Discussion and conclusions
It is not essential in order to make a finding of an unfair labor practice under Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act that the status of an employee be held by the person against
4 When Chelf was asked on cross-examination why he characterized Germany's letter
as "good," he answered : "The reason I would think this letter would be a good letter in
his favor was that Mr Germany tells us about his being convinced that he [Quarles]
learned his lesson and would not be guilty of such conduct again " Chelf also acknowl-
edged that Germany's letter had no bearing with respect to Quarles' qualifications as it
makes no reference to the quality of Quarles' work while employed at Lone Star Steel
Company
5 The charge in this case was filed on January 29, 1960.
0 See Texas Natural Gasline Corporation, 116 NLRB 405, 413, footnote 13. Respond-
ent's answer states that when Quarles applied for a job, he "made it clear . . [he] was
not interested in a laborer's job "
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whom the alleged discrimination has been directed for this provision of the Act has
express application to a discrimination as to hire.? Discrimination in hiring as well
as in firing is proscribed by Section 8(a)(3). If an applicant for employment is
refused employment because of union membership or activities, such refusal consti-
tutes an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) because such
refusal has the effect of discouraging those activities protected by Section 7 of the
Act and thereby infringes upon the right of employees as well as applicants for
employment .8 -
For the reasons hereinafter explicated, it is concluded and found that Quarles was
refused employment by Respondent when he applied for a job on November 9,
1959, because of his involvement in labor activities when he was employed by the
Lone Star Steel Company.
Quarles impressed the trier of these facts as a forthright and credible witness.
The events narrated by him follow a logical sequence, which are more consistent
both with the attendant circumstances in this case and the inherent probabilities of
what are believed to be the facts surrounding Respondent's rejecting Quarles' ap-
plication for employment on November 9, 1959. "The statement of a party, not
inherently improbable or impossible, is entitled to the weight the trier of the facts
believes he should attach to it. It needs no support or corroboration to achieve
validity. The mere fact one party to a conversation denies the fact or import of a
conversation does not invalidate or destroy the testimony of one who relates
it.... All such matters are validly brought to the attention of the trier of fact
below, and properly urged, but are of no great significant value to the Court, once
the trier of fact below has come to its decision." 9
Moreover, it is not believed that there was merely a coincidental connection be-
tween Respondent's decision not to hire Quarles and Chelf's and Lilly's interest in
and remarks about Quarles' involvement in a labor dispute at the Lone Star Steel
Company. See supra. Corroborative, if not conclusive of this belief is Harvin's
letter to Congressman Beckworth in which he expressed the Company's apprehension
about Quarles' "active part in the strike two years before at Lone Star ... - ."
Then, too, Chelf stated at one point in his testimony that there was no job avail-
able on the day Quarles applied, yet he referred him to Lilly, the foreman of the
machine shop.10 However, Quarles testified, that he was told by Chelf, there was
at least one trainee job available 11 However, Lilly did not mention the unavail-
ability of a. job but testified that the reason he did not consider Quarles for a trainee
job was due to lack of qualifications.12 The shifting reasons given for not hiring
7 N L.R B v. George D. Auchter Company, et at, 209 F. 2d 273, 277 (C.A. 5), enfg.
102 NLRB 881
8 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177; N.L R B. v. Waumbec Mills, 114 F. 2d
226 (CA. 1) ; Bituminous Material & Supply Co. v N.LR.B., 281 F. 2d 365 (CA. 8)
N.L R.B. v. Tewtile Machine Works, Inc., 214 F. 2d 929, 931 (C.A. 3) ; T H. Burns, et al,
d/b/a Burns and Gillespie, 101 NLRB 1181 ; Montgomery Hardwood Flooring Company,
Inc., 72 NLRB 113; J08. W. Fournier, Rome Lincoln-Mercury Corp, 86 NLRB 397.
9NL.R.B. v. Combined Century Theatres, Inc., et al., 278 F. 2d 306, (CA 2).
10 Chelf testified on direct examination that after interviewing Quarles, he considered
him an eligible employee for employment. Based on this determination, Chelf referred
Quarles to Lilly, foreman of the machine shop. Page 90 of the transcript.
n Accord : N.L.R B. v. San Angelo Standard, Inc., 228 F. 2d 504, 508 (C A. 5), enfg. as
modified 110 NLRB 1091. Chelf testified on direct examination that when Quarles applied
for work on November 9, "we only had one job available which . . . called for a machine
operator in the machine shop." - Pages 89, 101, and 102 of transcript. Lilly testified that
there was a machine operator's job available Page 109. Two men were hired in the
machine shop ; one, some time in December, and another, on December 16, 1959. A
machine shop trainee's starting wage scale is $1.25 per hour whereas Quarles' starting
scale when he was hired on March 21, 1960, as a laborer was $1.35 an hour. This
might indicate that a machine shop trainee's job does not require experience
12 See Akin Products Company, 99 NLRB 1270, where a refusal to hire seven appli-
cants who were known to be union adherents was held discriminatory, despite the fact
that there were insufficient jobs for all applicants since the employer's announced reason
for rejection was the employees' union adherence. The Board said
Our disagreement with the Trial Examiner centers therefore upon what relevance to
the issues raised in the complaint, should be accorded the fact that the Respondent
could not hire all applicants or retain an existing staff. Unlike the Trial Examiner,
we deem this fact of little significance in determining the Respondent's real motive
TYLER PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 1193
Quarles, as evidenced by the different versions and contradictory reasons given by
Cheif and Lilly which contradicted themselves and one another, not only tend to dis-
credit each of the contradictory reasons advanced , but also serve to indicate that
they may have been intent on covering up a proscribed reason for not hiring Quarles,
thereby adding 'support to an inference that the true reason was a discriminatory one.
Moreover, Respondent's shifting reasons for explaining its basis for not hiring
Quarles, the Board had held in other cases, are often indicative of a discriminatory
intent,13 and the Respondent's inconsistent or contradictory explanations of its de-
cision not to hire Quarles is a circumstance indicating its motivation.14
It is concluded and found, therefore, that the evidence, realistically viewed, estab-
lishes that the real reason for the refusal to hire Quarles was Respondent's appre-
hension, as stated by Harvin in his letter to Congressman Beckworth that ". . . we
must be particularly careful with anyone who might be an agitator." This is
believed to be an unmistakable reference to the Respondent's fear that due to Quarles'
involvement in a labor dispute at his previous place of employment, he might engage
in union activities and "agitate" among Respondent's employees. Corroborative of
this conclusion is Harvin's letter to Congressman Beckworth in which he states:
"If we can be convinced that he has no more connection with the Union and would
not come into our plant and agitate, we might have-a•spot for him." 15
It is, therefore, concluded and found that by the discriminatory refusal to hire
Quarles on November 9, 1959, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
,By the same act, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced Quarles in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of theAct.16
M. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) 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.
Having found that the Respondent denied employment to Raymond Quarles on
November 9, 1959, it will be recommended that he be made whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by the payment
of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages in
such position from the date of the discrimination against him to March 21, 1960, the
date when he entered Respondent's employ, less his net earnings during said period.
It is also recommended that Respondent, upon reasonable request, make available
to the Board and its agents, all payroll and other records pertinent to the analysis of
the amount due as backpay.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, there are hereby made the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
11. Respondent is and, at all times relevant herein, was engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Raymond
Quarles by denying him employment, thereby discouraging the exercise by workers of
full freedom of association for the purpose of negotiating and adjusting the terms
and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection, Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.17
In selection. Where, as here, it appears affirmatively that certain employees were
rejected because of, their union activity, it can be no defense to the complaint that
the Employer could not hire both the women it did select and the ones rejected
13 Thomas W. Dint, et al., co-partners, d/b/a Dant d Russell, Ltd, 92 NLRB 307, 320
"N L R B v Condenser Corporation of America, 128 F. 2d 67, 75 (C A 3) ; Inter-
national Furniture Company, 98 NLRB 674, 678, enfd. 199 F. 2d 6418, 650 (C A. 5)
15 General Counsel's Exhibit No 4
16 Veta Mines, Incorporated, 36 NLRB 288, where employment was denied because of
applicant's union activities and participation in union strike at his prior place of
employment.
17 The language normally used which refers to discriminatory conduct on the part of
an employer "discouraging membership in the union" is not here used as there was no
union involved in this proceeding
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing Quarles in the exercise or rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Mooney Aircraft , Inc. and Lodge 725, International Association
of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1015 and 23-CA-
1056. August 24, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Arnold Ordman issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed with respect to these allegations. Thereafter the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. No exceptions were filed by the Respondent.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel
[Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent by its vice president, Ander-
son, and the chief of its planning department, McDaniel, reprimanded
1 The Respondent filed no exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the Trial
Examiner that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint . Accordingly , the Board pro forma adopts all these findings and conclu-
sions of the Trial Examiner.
132 NLRB No. 100.