Universal Camera Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION and HIRE CHAIRMAN
Case No. 2-C-5760.-Decided August 31, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 18, 1947, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the complainant and counsel for the'Board filed exceptions
and supporting briefs. The Respondent submitted a brief in support
of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report.
On March 4, 1947, the Board granted the request of the complainant
and the Respondent for oral argument before the Board. On May 12,
1948, the Board reconsidered its action and rescinded its leave for oral
argument, with leave to the parties to submit, within 20 days from the
date of notification, a supplemental brief or written argument in lieu
of oral argument originally requested.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
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. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings of fact with
certain exceptions noted below, but reverses his conclusions and
recommendations.
The Trial Examiner found that the evidence failed to sustain the
allegation of the complaint that Chairman was discharged in violation
of Section 8 (4) of the Act.' We disagree. In our opinion, a pre-
' Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
I The provisions of Section 8 (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the com-
plaint alleged was violated , are continued in Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act as amended by
the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
79 N. L . R. B., No. 55.
379
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ponderance of the evidence shows that Chairman's discharge was due
to the Respondent's resentment against Chairman because he had testi-
fied for the Union at a representation hearing on November 30, 1943.
We believe that the Trial Examiner, in finding otherwise, failed to
appreciate the strength of the prima facie case against the Respondent
established by the evidence, and erroneously credited certain im-
plausible testimony adduced by the Respondent in explanation of
the circumstances leading up to Chairman's discharge 2
As fully detailed in the Intermediate Report, the record shows con-
clusively that Chairman incurred the hostility of the Respondent, and
especially of Chief Engineer Kende, who ultimately discharged
him, by testifying favorably to the'Union's position, and unfavorably
to the Respondent's at the Board hearing in a representation, case on
November 30, 1943. Politzer, Chairman's immediate superior, warned
Chairman in advance not to testify for the Union; a and a few hours
after Chairman's appearance as a witness, Kende angrily upbraided
him for testifying. On the following day, Kende, in conference with
Politzer and Personnel Manager Weintraub, launched an investiga-
tion of Chairman 's record for the purpose of finding an excuse to
discharge him. Both Kende's own testimony and Politzer's con-
temporaneous statements to Chairman and Goldson show beyond any
reasonable doubt that this search for a pretext was motivated by
Kende's indignation over Chairman's testimony. The net result of
this conference on December 1 was that neither of the causes for dis-
charging Chairman then suggested by Kende proved feasible. Politzer
assured Kende that Chairman was efficient and a few days later also
reported, after making inquiry as he was instructed to do, that Chair-
man was not a Communist. Nothing, therefore, was done about Chair-
man at that time.4
' It appears that the Trial Examiner in weighing the evidence in this case was guided
by a standard more rigorous than was laid down in the Act for the guidance of the Board
in performance of its fact -finding function . The Board is only enjoined to predicate its
findings on a preponderance of the evidence , not a conclusive quantum , and it may , of course,
draw reasonable inference as to such matters as motive which cannot in the nature of
things be proved other than circumstantially ( N L. R B. v Bird Machine Co, 161 F (2d)
589 (C . C A 1) ; N L R. B v. Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc , 127 F ( 2d) 438 (C. C A 1)
N. L R. B. v. American Laundry Machinery Co, 138 F. ( 2d) 889 (C C. A. 2) )
8 Politzer was in charge of the maintenance employees whose unit grouping was the issue
in dispute in the representation proceeding Together with Chief Engineer Kende, he
testified for the Respondent at the same hearing at which Chairman testified . Politzer
knew that Chairman sympathized with the employees ' efforts to secure separate bargaining
representation , and he told Assistant Engineer Goldson that "the Company knew" that
Chairman was "with the men " Politzer was obviously in a position to know the Respond-
ent's attitude and probable intentions regarding Chairman 's appearance as a witness for
the Union , and we find that his warnings are evidentiary of the Respondent 's animus against
Chairman . It is entirely immaterial that, as the Trial Examiner observed , Politzer's
motives in warning Chairman were "friendly."
4 In finding that the conference of December 1 did not result in "any plan for Chairman's
discharge," the Trial Examiner discounts the significance of that conference and Kende's
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 381
In the face of this clear evidence of the Respondent's animus against
Chairman and its desire and intention to discharge him because of his
testimony at the Board hearing if a pretext could be found, it was
incumbent upon the Respondent to go forward to show convincingly
that when Chairman was actually discharged-by Kende himself-S
weeks later, ostensibly because of an episode that was then stale, the
real reason was something other than Chairman's appearance as a wit-
ness.5 Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find the Respondent's
explanation of the discharge implausible.
Kende ordered Chairman's discharge on January 24, 1944, ostensi-
bly because of a complaint lodged against Chairman by Personnel
Manager Weintraub, to the effect that Chairman had been guilty of
"gross insubordination" in an encounter with Weintraub in the plant
on the night of December 30, more than 3 weeks before. Politzer,
who was Chairman's immediate superior, and was himself responsible
directly to Kende, opposed Weintraub's demand for the discharge.
Kende nevertheless ruled peremptorily in Weintraub's favor, with-
out questioning Chairman himself or otherwise independently in-
vestigating the December 30 incident. That episode itself was a
heated argument between Weintraub and Chairman, precipitated by
Weintraub's order that Chairman send home an employee whom
Chairman had stationed on stand-by duty. The record shows that
Weintraub's authority to give Chairman such an order was at least
questionable. Moreover, whether or not Weintraub had this author-
ity, the dispute ended with the two men shaking hands and agreeing
to "forget" their differences. It was, at most, only a squabble between
two supervisors, one of whom, Chairman, reasonably questioned the
other's authority in the circumstances; it was not an instance of "gross
insubordination" on Chairman's part. ,
During the next 31/2 weeks, the Respondent neither reprimanded
Chairman for his supposed impertinence to Weintraub, nor took any
disciplinary action against him. Indeed, Politzer, when Chairman
reported the affair to him on December 31, assured Chairman that it
was Weintraub, rather than Chairman, who had been "out of order."
The only testimony offered by the Respondent in explanation of the
long delay between Chairman's alleged misconduct and his punish-
ment, is that of Weintraub and Politzer to the effect that Politzer as-
sured Weintraub, within a day or two after December 30, that Chair-
man intended to resign in about 10 days. The Respondent asserts that
Weintraub thereupon lodged no complaint against Chairman until
January 24 because he had in the meantime been expecting Chairman
motivation as revealed by it. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's appraisal of this
incident
5 Cf. Montgomery Ward & Co v N L R B, 107 F. (2d) 555, 560 (C C. A. 7).
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to leave, and only noticed, on or about January 24, that Chairman was
still at work. The Trial Examiner believed this testimony, although
he flatly discredited Politzer's statement, contradicted by Chairman,
that Chairman had in fact agreed to resign, and although he also
found both Weintraub and Politzer to be unreliable witnesses in many
respects. We cannot accept the Trial Examiner's finding that Polit-
zer, in effect, invented the story that Chairman intended to resign in
order to appease Weintraub and gain time for Chairman, for this
finding is irreconcilable with the other related facts, and all the other
evidence bearing on Politzer's behavior and attitudes at that time .6
We find, then, that the record contains no credible explanation of
Weintraub's failure to call for disciplinary action against Chairman,
on account of their quarrel on December 30, until about a month after
the event. We think that on this record, Weintraub's revival of the
December 30 episode as a basis for demanding Chairman's discharge,
and Kende's summary ruling on that demand, despite Politzer's oppo-
sition, are reasonably explained only by the other facts to which we
previously adverted : The Respondent's extreme animus against
Chairman because of his testimony at the Board hearing despite its
prior warning, and its promptly conceived plan-which was initially
frustrated, but not shown to have been abandoned-to find a pretext
,for discharging him.7 We find, on the entire record, that Chairman
was discharged for testifying at the Board hearing, in violation of
6 There is also no plausible support for the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Weintraub
"chose to make an issue" of the December 30 episode , which he had promised to "forget,"
"when he learned that Politzer was investigating his [Weintraub ' s] conduct." This
finding, based on the testimony of Politzer , whom the Trial Examiner generally dis-
credited , is in direct conflict with Weintraub 's own testimony concerning his alleged
conversations with Politzer at that time ; and it is inconsistent with the testimony of
Zicarelli , who was elsewhere specifically credited by the Trial Examiner where his testi-
mony was in conflict with Weintraub 's, Zicarelli , who had mediated between Weintraub
and Chairman during the December 30 encounter , testified that when he spoke to Wein-
traub the next day, Weintraub assured him that the incident was "forgotten ." Wein-
traub admitted the conversation , although he denied that this was what he said to
Zicarelli.
7 The Trial Examiner found that there was insufficient "proof" to establish "an arrange-
ment between Kende and Weintraub to penalize Chairman for testifying " ; also that Wein-
traub's conduct on December 30, in his quarrel with Chairman , "was not actuated by
reason of Chairman ' s pro-union testimony at the representation hearing ." We agree that,
for all that appears , Weintraub 's animosity toward Chairman , exhibited during, their
apparently fortuitous encounter on December 30, was not specifically attributable to
Chairman 's testimony at the Board hearing. It is also true that there is no direct evi-
dence of an explicit understanding between Kende and Weintraub , subsequent to the
conference on December 1, that Weintraub would either create the December 30 inci-
dent itself , or exploit that particular incident as the basis for Chairman 's discharge.
However, the absence of direct and detailed evidence of such a conspiracy, as the Trial
Examiner suggests and finds unproved , does not militate against our conviction that it
was actually because of Chairman's testimony at the Board hearing , and only ostensibly
because of the resurrected December 30 episode , that Weintraub and Kende brought about
Chairman ' s discharge . On the evidence before us , we have no substantial doubt that
discrimination occurred ; neither in this nor in any similar case is it necessary that we
have positive proof blueprinting the method whereby that discrimination was planned and
accomplished.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 383
Section 8 (4) of the Act. We therefore reverse Conclusion of Law No.
3 set forth in the Intermediate Report.
The effect of the unfair labor practices upon commerce
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in the Inter-
mediate Report, 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.
The Remedy
The Respondent contends that Chairman's position was abolished
upon Chairman's discharge, and that for this reason no reinstatement
can be ordered, even if the Board finds that the Respondent dis-
charged Chairman in violation of the Act. The record, however,
does not support the Respondent's contention. Chairman's position
was neither abolished nor substantially modified after his discharge.
Chairman was replaced by maintenance mechanic Sebia, who was up-
graded and made foreman in charge of Chairman's shift. In his new
position Sebia directed and supervised the work of his crew. He
worked with his hands part of the time, and did not work on engineer-
ing plans. At the time of Chairman's discharge, the Respondent em-
ployed three assistant engineers, each of whom was in charge of a shift
of maintenance mechanics. After Chairman's discharge, only Chair-
man's job was modified in name only while the duties of the other two
assistant engineers remained substantially the same.,,
As it has been found that the Respondent discriminated against
Chairman for having given testimony under the Act and thereby
violated Section 8 (4) of the Act, we shall direct that the Respondent
offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights or privileges. We shall also order that the Respondent
make Chairman whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a sum
equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during
the periods : from January 25, 1944, to the date of the Intermediate
Report herein, and from the date of the Decision and Order herein
s Assistant Engineer Goldson testified that he is presently in charge of the crew of
maintenance mechanics on the 7 30 a. in to 4: 30 p m. shift and that he has a job
equivalent to that of Chairman. Chief Engineer Kende testified that the scope of duties
of the two maintenance engineers remained the same as Chairman's, after the latter's
discharge.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings during the same periods .9
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct we are persuaded
that, unless enjoined, danger of the commission by the Respondent in
the future of like and related unfair labor practices is to be antici-
pated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. In order to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease
and desist from discharging, or otherwise discriminating against any
employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under the
Act, or in any other manner interfering with the rights of employees
to file and prosecute charges and to give testimony snider the Act.
The Respondent contends that as a matter of law because super-
visors are excluded from the coverage of the Act, as amended by the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, it would not effectuate the
policies of the Act to order the reinstatement of Chairman, who at
the time of his discharge occupied a supervisory position, and that
the Board, in any event, is powerless to remedy unfair labor practices
engaged in by the Respondent prior to the amendment of the Act on
August 22, 1947, which ceased to be such after the amendments. For
the reasons set forth in our opinion in Matter of Republic Steel Cor-
poration (Upson Division) 10 we find no merit in the Respondent's
contention.
The Respondent also contends that the Board may not issue an-
order directing reinstatement and back pay for Chairman in view of
the provision of Section 10 (c) of the Act, as amended, which pre-
cludes the Board from directing reinstatement, or back pay, for any
employee who has been suspended for cause. We find no merit in the
contention. Assuming that the provision has retroactive application
to events that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendments
to the Act, it is not applicable to the instant case, for Chairman's
discharge, as we have found, was not "for cause," but for his having
given testimony under the Act.`
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #3,
affiliated with American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
0 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
10 77 N. L R. B 1107; see also Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company, 75 N. L. R B.
569.
Cf. Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 77 N L R B 1058.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 385
2. By discharging Imre Chairman and failing to reinstate him
because he had testified for International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local #3, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
at a representation hearing on November 30, 1943, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.'?
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the 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, Universal
Camera Corporation, New York City, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any employee because he has filed charges or given testimony
under the Act, or in any other manner interfering with the right of
employees to file and prosecute charges and to give testimony under
the Act.
^. Take the following ;.ffirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
'(a) Offer In-ire Chairman immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make Imre Chairman whole for any loss of pay he has suffered
because of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally
have earned as wages during the following periods : from January 25,
1944, to the date of the Intermediate Report herein, and from the date
of the Decision and Order herein to the date of the Respondent's offer
of reinstatement,'less his net earnings during the same periods;
(c) Post at its plant in New York City, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A`' Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
I The provisions of Section 8 (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Board
found were violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act, as amended by the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
"' In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words "DECREE OF
THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING "
386 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 ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director of the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
I disagree with the conclusion of my colleagues that Imre Chairman
was discriminatorily discharged by the respondent in violation of
Section 8 (4) of the Act. I am of the opinion, shared in by the Trial
Examiner, that the evidence does not sustain a finding that the violent
altercation which took place on December 30, 1943, between Chairman
and Weintraub, respondent's personnel director, was actuated by
reason of Chairman's testimony at the prior representation hearing,
or that Chief Engineer Kende's motive in sustaining Weintraub's
demand that Chairman be dismissed was based upon anything other
than his evaluation of Weintraub's request.
Accordingly, I would adopt the recommendation of the Trial Ex
aminer that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
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 DISCHARGE or otherwise discriminate against any
employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the right of
our employees to file or prosecute charges and to give testimony
under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL OFFER to Imre Chairman immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination.
------------------------------
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.
0
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 387
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board.
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman & Hays, Esqs., New York, N. Y., by Mr. Beryl H. Levy,
for the respondent.
Mr. Imre Chairman, the charging party, in person.
Mr. John K. Lapham, New York, N. Y., for Local No. 3, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Imre Chairman, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region
(New York, New York), issued its complaint, dated October 2, 1946, against
Universal Camera Corporation, New York, New York, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (4)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, together with notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, Imre Chairman, and Local No. 3,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the
Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that
the respondent discharged lire Chairman on or about January 25, 1944, and
failed and refused to reinstate him because he gave testimony under the Act.
In its answer, dated October 22, 1946, the respondent admits the jurisdictional
allegations set forth in the complaint and the discharge of Chairman, but denies
the commission of any unfair labor practices. The answer also alleges the
affirmative defenses that (1) Chairman resigned, but reconsidered and that
on discovering this fact the personnel manager ordered his discharge; (2) that
the delay in issuing the complaint constitutes laches.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at New York, New York, from October
28 through November 8, 1946, before the undersigned, Sidney L Feiler, the Trial
Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel. The dischargee appeared in person The Union
appeared by a representative on the opening day of the hearing, but was not
represented thereafter. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. During the hearing , counsel for the Board moved to amend the
complaint by alleging an additional reason for the discharge ; namely, that
Chairman was discharged for assisting the Union and engaging in other con-
certed activities protected by the Act, said action being in violation of Section
8 (3) of the Act. The motion was denied. Counsel for the respondent moved
to amend its answer as to the defense of lathes to allege that the delay in
issuing the complaint and the delay of Chairman in filing a charge constituted
laches. The respondent also included in its motion to amend a new defense that
Chairman 's position had been abolished. The motion was granted. At the
conclusion of the Board 's case-in-chief, counsel for the respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint. This motion was denied. After all the testimony had
been presented, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the
proof as to formal matters. This motion was granted without objection. Counsel
for the respondent then renewed the motion to dismiss the complaint and
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
argument thereon was presented . Decision was reserved and said motion is
disposed of by the findings , conclusions , and recommendations herein. Oppor-
tunity was then afforded the parties to file briefs and/or proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law . The respondent submitted a brief containing pro-
posed findings and conclusions , which are disposed of hereinafter
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Delaware corporation having its principal office and place
of business in New York City, New York. where it has been and is engaged in
the manufacture, sale and distribution of optical lenses, binoculars and related
products. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, the re-
spondent purchased materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 50 percent was transported to its plant in New York from points outside
the State of New York. During the same period, the respondent manufactured
at its plant in New York products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which ap-
proximately 50 percent was sold and transported to points outside the State
of New York.
The respondent did not contest the jurisdiction of the Board and the under-
signed finds that the respondent at all relevant times was and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The defense of lathes
The respondent in its amended answer raised the defense of laches and relied
on the alleged delays in Chairman's filing of a charge 'and the issuance of the
complaint in this proceeding.
Chairman was discharged on January 25, 1944 On January 28, 1944, the
Union filed a charge on his behalf alleging that he had been discharged in viola-
tion of Section S (1) and (4) of the Act. On January 25, 1945, the Union ad-
dressed a letter to counsel for the respondent notifying them that it had with-
drawn the charge, as of that date On February 3, 1945. Chairman filed a charge
in his own behalf On February 7, 1945, a Board Field Examiner addressed a
letter to the respondent notifying it of the Union's wlthdiawal of the charge, the
filing of a charge by Chairman, quoting material from it, and concluding with
the statement that the examiner had recommended issuance of a complaint. The
respondent also received a letter from the Regional Director, dated February 10,
1945, advising it that with his approval the Union's charge had been withdrawn,
without prejudice The complaint was subsequently issued on October 2, 1946.
The record of the filing of two charges afoie-mentioned and the correspondence
thereon shows that there was no delay in the presentation to the Board of the
claim that Chairman was discriminatorily discharged Later, when the Union
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 389
withdrew its charge, Chairman filed a charge on his own behalf within a week
and the respondent was advised of the charge, the substance thereof, and of the
intended recommendation that a complaint issue. It was not necessary that
Chairman file the original charge and the undersigned finds that there was no
laches in the presentation of Chairman's claim to the Board. Furthermore, the
defense is not valid as to the lapse of time between the filing of the charges and
the issuance of the complaint'
B. The d ischai ge of Imi e Chairman
1. Organizational activity among the maintenance mechanics: the representation
proceeding
The general production employees at the respondent's plant had been repre-
sented by a union from March 1942. A group of maintenance mechanics sought
membership in that union, but their applications were refused. In the fall of
1943, some of these employees joined the Union herein which filed a petition for
an election and certification of representatives. A hearing on the petition was
conducted commencing November 26. 1943. The Board, in its decision, directed
that an election be conducted among the maintenance employees 2 The Union was
successful and thereafter entered into a contract with the respondent. Subse-
quent relations between the Union and the respondent have been satisfactory
Imre Chairman took part in the representation proceedings and the events pre-
ceding it. He was employed by the respondent on August 22, 1943, in a super-
visory capacity as an assistant or maintenance engineer and was placed in charge,
of the maintenance mechanics on the shift from 4 p in to midnight. At the time
Chairman was hired the maintenance workers were actively discussing prob-
lems of self-organization Chairman was invited to and did appear at several
meetings of these employees and gave advice and assistance. He also appeared
at their request at the November 26 and November 30 sessions of the representa-
tion hearing. While the proceeding was non-adversary in nature the parties.
advanced opposing contentions and extensive testimony was adduced. These-
contentions were summarized by the Board in its decision, as follows:
The I. B. E W. [the Union herein] contends that all maintenance mechanics,
maintenance mechanics' helpers, and carpenters, constitute an appropriate
unit The Company and Local 208 contend (1) that the employees in the,
I. B. E. W unit are covered by the existing contract, and (2) that such
employees do not constitute an appropriate unit because (a) they properly
belong in an industrial unit, and (b) the I. B. E. W. unit encompasses two.
groups of maintenance employees, "optical" and `building" having nothing
in common with each other.
Chairman attended the November 26 session of the representation hearing at
the request of the maintenance mechanics, but did not testify. Chairman testi-_
fled in the instant proceeding that after that session, but before the second
session on November 30, he had a conversation with his immediate superior,.
Plant Engineer Benjamin Politzer, in which Politzer cautioned him that it
I N L R B v Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., 315 U S 685, reversing 120 F (2d) 611
(C C. A 6), setting aside 18 N L It B 591: N L. R B v Berkshire Knittsnq Mills, 121
F (2d) 235 (C C A 3), remanding 17 N L R B 239, Tiiplea Screw Co v. N L R B„
117 F (2d) 858 (C C A 6), entoicing 25 N L R B 1126
' flatter of Unii,ei sal Camera Corporation, 54 N L R B 1037
509095-49-vol 79 26
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not do him any good to testify. Politzer denied making this statement,
but his denial is not credited. During the same period Chairman spoke with
Harry Goldson, an employee who had the same duties as Chairman and who
supervised the shift prior to Chairman's. Goldson told Chairman that the
respondent knew that Chairman was "with" the men and that if he testified it
might not help him with the company a Despite the warnings he received, Chair-
man attended the November 30 session of the representation hearing and testified.
The transcript of the representation hearing shows that Chairman testified
at length and in support of the Union's position as heretofore quoted from the
decision of the Board. He testified during the morning session and also during
the early part of the afternoon session which began at 1: 45 p. M. Testimony
was also given by three officials of the respondent, Vice-President Jacob J.
Shapiro, Chief Engineer George Kende [Politzer's immediate superior], and
Politzer. Kende and Politzer testified that they attended the hearing on short
notide and without prior preparation, but their testimony supported the position
advanced by the respondent and differed substantially from Chairman's.
After he testified, Chairman went to the plant and began working on his
regular shift. At about 7 p. in. he left the plant with Goldson for his dinner.
They met Kende on the steps outside the plant and Kende and Chairman engaged
in an acrimonious exchange over the testimony that had been given at the
hearing
In the course of the discussion Kende told Chairman that he had perjured
himself.' Chairman said that Kende was a liar and inquired whether Kende
was a professional engineer and when Kende said he was not, Chairman told
him that he was the ranking engineer at the plant and would support the men.
The next day Kende sent for Chairman's application for employment and
also summoned Politzer to his office. Kende described his state of mind in
the following language :
And I repeat, here is this man who had been with us only a few weeks, in
a responsible position, in charge of one shift of mainenance mechanics, who
seemed to be; I was quite certain of this, seemed to be either ignorant of
the true facts regarding the organization within the company, responsibility
of employees of supervisors or if that was not the case, then lie was delib-
erately lying, not in one instance but in many instances, all afternoon
I felt, therefore, that there was definite doubt regarding his suitability for
a supervisory position of that nature.
8 Goldson and Chairman were in substantial agreement as to the substance of this con-
versation . Goldson further testified that Politzer told him to pass that information on to
Chairman and that it was meant as a friendly warning This testimony is credited.
* It is evident from the test?mony of Chairman, Kende, and Goldson that the encounter
was brief and very heated The undersigned has not accepted the full testimony of any of
-these witnesses as to the incident, but bases his findings on an evaluation of the complete
testimony.
5 There is a dispute among the witnesses as to whether Kende actually heard Chairman
testify at the afternoon session. Chairman testified that he left the healing room in mid-
afternoon and met Politzer and Kende in the lobby of the building on their way to the
hearing room, and that Politzer then introduced Chairman to Kende since they had not yet
met. Kende testified that he and Politzer arrived at the hearing room at or near the start
of the afternoon session and heard Chairman testify. Politzer had no clear recollection of
when he got to the hearing or whether he saw Chairman on that day. The transcript of
the hearing shows that Chairman testified shortly after the beginning of the afternoon
session and that Kende and Politzer were the last two witnesses and testified much later.
In addition, Kende was uncertain as to the identity of other witnesses who testified that
Afternoon. The undersigned credits Chairman 's testimony.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 391
Politzer told Kende that Chairman's work was satisfactory. Then Personnel
Manager Irving Weintraub arrived with Chairman's file and Kende proceeded
to study the application for employment. Kende referred to a reference from
an employee of a foreign language newspaper and said he thought that the news-
paper was communistic He also stated that he thought that Chairman was a
Communist. Weintraub replied that that made no difference. The conference
concluded when Kende told Politzer to keep an eye on Chairman 8 A few days
later Politzer told Kende that lie had checked with Goldson and had been told
that Chairman was not a Communist
Word of the confer;ence was relayed to Chairman Barkins, an employee, told
Chairman that Kende had asked for his application. Politzer told him that
Kende was angry and wanted him to apologize and that he had better do so and
that "they" were after his scalp and would try to get something on him to dis-
miss him! Politzer also told Goldson about his conference with Kende and
Weintraub, said that he thought some method would be used to discharge Chair-
man and told Goldson to tell Chairman of it. Goldson did so.'
2. The incident on December 30, 1043
On the night of December 30, 1943, Personnel Manager Irving Weintraub was at
the plant and patrolled the various departments . His purpose in doing so,
Weintraub testified , was to make sure that there was no slackening of work
during the holiday season since the respondent was then engaged almost exclu-
sively in war production.
During the evening Weintraub passed Frank Kollisch , a maintenance mechanic,
several times and noticed that he was standing in the doorway of the mechanics'
shop apparently doing nothing . Weintraub then took Kqllisch to Chairman who
was in Politzer 's office. Weintraub told Chairman that he had seen Kollisch
loafing and wanted him sent home. Chairman said that Kollisch was standing
by for emergency duty. When Weintraub insisted that Kollisch be sent home,
6 The above description of the conference of Kende, Politzer, and Weintraub is based on
their testimony which was in substantial agreement . Politzer and Kende differed as to
whether Politzer had volunteered to keep an eye on Chairman or whether Kende had sug-
gested it . Kende and Weintraub differed as to whether Kende actually called Chairman a
communist. However the general course of the conversation is clear
Politzer testified in detail as to his state of mind during this period. He testified that
the maintenance men spoke to him concerning their treatment and that some of them said
that the company was not fair and that he agreed with them. He also stated that be felt
resentment against the company because he was not consulted by top management concern-
ing the men under his supervision He further testified that prior to this hearing he had
reconsidered his position and felt that he had been wrong in his attitude towards the com-
panv and that his feelings might have led him to color the truth in 1943 and 1944.
The testimony does show that at the time of the incidents herein Politzer was friendly
with Chairman and did try to help him. It is undenied also , as appears later, that Polltzer
opposed Chairman 's discharge . However, Politzer was uncertain and confused in his
testimony . The undersigned found his testimony in many respects to be vague and
unreliable.
As to his warning to Chairman, Politzer testified that he might have used language to
the effect that the company was trying to "get" Chairman for testifying , but that he could
not recall it. He denied that he was ever told this by any company official.
8 Chairman also testified that Goldson told him that he had overheard a conversation
between Kende and Vice-President Shapiro to the effect that they would find a pretext to
discharge him. Goldson denied this and his denial is credited . Goldson testified that he
did tell Chairman that his testifying would not do him any good with the company and
that he might have used Shapiro 's name in that connection because, in his mind, Shapiro
and the company were synonymous
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chairman said Politzer was his superior, that he would only take his orders from
him, and refused to carry out Weintraub's order After a further exchange of
words during which, Chairman testified, Weintraub said he had power from the
War Department to kill him, Chairman said to Weintraub, "if you are drunk,
please go home and sleep it off." Weintraub then ordered Chairman to leave
and the latter refused. Weintraub attempted without success to telephone a
guard. He then rushed out of the office.
Weintraub i eturned in a short while with Al Salinsky , a uniformed guard.
Joseph Zicarelli, a maintenance mechanic and shop steward for the Union,
had heard some of the prior conversation between Chairman and Weintraub.
He intervened when Salinsky entered Chairman 's office and remonstrated with
Chairman and Weintraub. He was able to get both men to agree to shake hands
and forget the incident.
There is complete disagreement between the witnesses for the Board and the
respondent as to what took place immediately thereafter . Zicarelli and Chair-
man testified that Weintraub and Salinsky left and that they completed their
shifts without further incident. Chairman testified that he closed windows and
locked things up because there would be no work the next two night shifts.'
Weintraub testified that after he had shaken hands with Chairman he started
to leave and then heard Chairman again say that he was drunk. Then, Wein-
traub, testified, he ordered Salinsky to put Chairman out of the plant and this
order was carried out in spite of protestations from Zicarelli 10 Salinsky testi-
fied that he put Chairman out of the plant at Weintraub's order. Sam Pearl,
foreman of an optical department shift, testified that he saw part of the afore-
mentioned events from outside Chairman's office and that lie saw Weintraub
come up to the office with Salinsky and heard him say "there's your man," anal
that a minute or two later he saw Salinsky come out with Chairman with
Zicarelli and Weintraub following them.
Salinsky's version of the events of December 30 differed markedly from the
testimony of Weintraub . Salinsky testified that he did not go to Chairman's
office with Weintraub ; Weintraub testified to the contrary . Salinsky could not
recall Chairman and Weintraub shaking hands and the circumstances surround-
ing it ; Weintraub and the witnesses for the Board were in substantial agreement
on that point The respondent contends that in spite of these divergencies, which
it attributes to Salinsky ' s nervousness at the time of the incident . Salinsky
and Weintraub were in agreement that Chairman was ejected from the plant
and that this version was the correct one. However, the inconsistencies in the
testimony of Salinsky and Weintraub cast doubt on the reliability of their
testimony. On the other hand, the undersigned was impressed with Chairman's
testimony as being a correct recital of events as they transpired. In important
aspects, Chairman's testimony was corroborated by witnesses for the respondent.
While the undersigned has not fully credited his version of certain conversa-
° Maintenance mechanics Joseph Morano and Ernest Werneburg testified that they were
on the shift following Chairman 's and that they worked the shift starting midnight
December 30, 1943, and ending in the morning of December 31 The respondent also intro-
duced in evidence a notice which had been posted notifying that shift that it would be paid
in the morning of December 31
10 John E Kearns testified that he had investigated the charges herein while serving as
Field Examiner for the Board He testified that he talked with Weintraub with reference
to obtaining Chairman's time card and that the latter had told him that Chairman had
completed his shift on the night in question However , he also testified that Weintraub
said that Salarsky escorted Chairman from the building All witnesses agreed that the
incident occuiied near the end of the shift
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 393
tions, the undersigned does credit his version of the events on the evening of
December 30, 1943, as corroborated by Zicarelli, and concludes that Chairman was
not elected from the plant.
3. Events between December 31, 1943. and
January 24, 1944
The day after his encounter with Weintraub, Chairman spoke to Politzer.
Chairman, according to his testimony herein, gave Politzer his version of the
events of the previous evening, told Pohtzer that Weintraub had been drunk,
and asked Politzer whether Weintraub could give him orders. Politzer, Chairman
further testified, replied that Weintraub was acting "out of order" and said that
he would see to it that Weintraub kept his promise to forget the incident.
Politzer denied the substance of Chairman's testimony. He testified that Chair-
man had told him that Weintraub had had him put out of the plant and asked
whether Weintraub could discharge him. Politzer, continuing his testimony,
stated that he told Chairman that Weintraub did not have the right to discharge
him and that he would support him. Politzer testified that he then questioned
several employees, but could not obtain corroboration of Chairman's claim
that Weintraub was drunk and reported this to Chairman later in the day. The
undersigned credits Chairman's testimony especially since lie continued working
without interruption and concludes that lie did not tell Politzer that he was
ejected.
Politzer also spoke with Weintraub about the incident. Weintraub testified
that he saw Politzer the morning after the incident, and started to tell Politzer
about it, but Politzer said that he already knew of it, that Chairman was re-
signing and would leave in 10 days or 2 weeks Weintraub testified that he
replied that that would be satisfactory, and that he would not press the matter,
but that Politzer should make sure that Chairman left at that time.
Politzer testified that he first spoke with Weintraub on the morning of the
second work day after the incident and that the conversation was as follows :
He said, "I hear you have been investigating me as to whether I was
drunk or not "
I said, "Yes."
He said, "You ought tn.know me better than that, that I don't drink. I
was dead tired that night-the night of December 30-and I had been on
my feet all day and that was late in the night and there was a lot of
pressure on me and I was then e under explicit order of Mr Githens "
Q. Who is that?
A. Mr. Githens?
Q. Yes. Spell that.
A. G-i-t-h-e-n-s.
Q. Who is Mr. Githens?
A. The president'of Universal Camera
0. Yes?
A. "You know damn well that I wouldn't drink under conditions like
that. I was here to see that there was no drinking" This is Weintraub
talking. "I was going to forget this whole matter with Imre but since he
is raising the issue of drunkenness, I want him fired."
Politzer further testified that he argued with Weintraub over this decision,
but Weintraub was adamant. Continuing his testimony. Politzer stated that
when he told Chairman of this conversation, Chairman said that the men were
k
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not backing him up and that he would quit in about ten days and submit his
written resignation in a few days. Politzer then relayed this information by
telephone to Weintraub who agreed to abide by the arrangement.
The testimony of Politzer as summarized above differed in important respects
from that of Weintraub. The undersigned from his observation of the witnesses
credits Politzer's version rather than Weintraub's as more in accord with the
prior events. However, the undersigned rejects Politzer's testimony that Chair-
man said that he would resign. Chairman clearly felt that he was in the right
in his argument with Weintraub. His insistence on testifying in the representa-
tion hearing in spite of contrary advice and warnings from his associates indi-
cates that he would not be swayed by the opinion of others when he had fixed
ideas. In addition, although Politzer testified that Chairman agreed to submit
a written resignation in a few days, there is no proof that he submitted one or
was asked to submit one.
This is not to say that the subject of resignation was not discussed by Politzer
and Chairman. According to Chairman's credited testimony, he had another
conversation with Politzer around January 11 or 12, 1944, in which Politzer said
that Weintraub was still angry and wanted to bring the incident up again and
Politzer then asked whether Chairman would not consider resigning. Chairman
refused.
Weintraub testified that on January 24, 1944, he first noticed that Chairman
had not resigned within the prescribed time and asked Politzer why Chairman
had not left 11 Politzer replied that Chairman had changed his mind and would
not resign. Weintraub insisted that Chairman leave, declaring that it would
lower his prestige if he could be called "drunk" without any punishment. Then
Politzer questioned Weintraub's authority to order Chairman's discharge Pol-
itzer and Weintraub went to Kende, Politzer's superior, and told him of their
dispute, including the surrounding circumstances. Kende upheld Weintraub.
Politzer then returned to his office and filled out a termination slip for Chairman
noting that he was discharged for "misconduct" and that the discharge was
effective as of January 25.
On January 25 Chairman was stopped by a guard as he attempted to,enter
the plant and was sent to Weintraub's office. Weintraub told him that he was
discharged for misconduct, but refused to give Chairman a written statement
to that effect. Chairman then said, "For your misconduct, you fired me. So long."
Chairman was then escorted to Politzer's office by Salinsky, the guard, and picked
up his personal possessions. While there, he spoke with Politzer and the latter
assured him that he had been satisfied with his work and did not want to discharge
him.
Conclusions
While there was a great deal of conflict among the witnesses as to the cir-
cumstances leading up to Chairman's discharge the basic events are discernible.
Chairman, shortly after his employment, interested himself in the efforts of the
maintenance mechanics to secure union representation. He appeared at the
representation hearing and gave testimony favorable to the position which a
majority of those mechanics were advocating and which was opposed to the
position taken by the respondent.
11 The findings as to the events leading up to the decision to discharge Chairman are based
on the testimony of Weintraub and Politzer primarily, and also the testimony of Kende and
Chairman as to later developments. Weintraub and Politzer did not agree on important
details and the findings are based upon a reconciliation of their testimony.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 395
Chairman received warnings from Goldson and Politzer both before and after
testifying that his conduct would bring him into disfavor with the respondent.
However, Politzer, although Chairman's immediate superior, was clearly dealing
with Chairman as an equal and was giving him his personal opinion meant as a
friendly warning. Politzer supported and defended Chairman throughout his
employment and while his recollection as to past events has not been fully
credited there is no dispute as to this background fact. In any event, there is
no proof that Politzer ever had any information or instruction from his superiors
as to the respondent's attitude toward Chairman before his conference with
Kende and Weintraub, on the day following the November 30 session of the
representation hearing.
Kende was aroused by Chairman's testimony which differed from his own.
He spoke to Chairman and the two had a violent quarrel. The next day Kende
called for Chairman's application and reviewed it with Politzer and Weintraub.
He was clearly very angry and dissatisfied with Chairman. However, Politzer
said that Chairman's work was satisfactory and Weintraub brushed aside Kende's
voiced belief that Chairman was a Communist. While Politzer felt after this
conference that Chairman's position was in jeopardy, and told Chairman so,
there is no proof that the conference resulted in any plan for Chairman's
discharge.
Nothing happened after that conference for almost a month. Then Chair-
man and Weintraub had their encounter on the night of December 30. While
the Board contended that Weintraub brought on the argument as part of a
pre-arranged plan to effect Chairman's discharge, the facts and circumstances
point to the opposite conclusion and indicate that the two principals had a
violent and sudden clash of tempers. The undersigned deems it unnecessary to
decide whether Weintraub was actually drunk, as Chairman claimed. Nor is it
necessary to decide the precise scope of Weintraub's authority on the night of
December 30, 1943.12 Again, whether Weintraub was morally justified in acting
as he did is beside the point. The undeisigned concludes that his conduct that
night was not actuated by reason of Chairman's pro-Union testimony at the
representation hearing.
The exact sequence of events thereafter is not very clear chiefly because
Politzer, who occupied the key position and was in a position to know the stands
taken by Weintraub and Chairman, gave testimony which the undersigned found
was not wholly reliable.
Although Chairman and Politzer discussed the question of resignation, the
undersigned is convinced that Chairman did not tell Politzer that he would resign.
However, Politzer did tell Weintraub that Chairman was resigning Whether
he wag, motivated therein by an honest mistake or by the thought that the quarrel
between Weintraub and Chairman might be soon forgotten if action was delayed,
is not clear. On January 24,. Weintraub insisted on the termination of Chair-
man's employment and was upheld by Kende.
The Board contended that the incident of December 30 had been settled ami-
cably by Chairman and Weintraub and that it had been revived several weeks
later and used as a pretext for Chairman's discharge when the actual reason
was that he had testified at the representation hearing. Chairman and Wein-
traub had shaken hands on December 30, but the credited testimony indicates
that Weintraub did not dismiss the incident from his mind, but chose to make
an issue of it when lie learned that Politzer was investigating his conduct.
"Chairman knew Weintraub as the personnel manager. However , the scope of Wein-
traub 's authority had never been delimited , as Politzer Indicated in his own testimony.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chairman also testified that about the middle of January Politzer told him
that Weintraub was making a personal issue of the dispute.
After considering the entire testimony, the undersigned is not persuaded that
the allegation of Chairman's discriminatory discharge has been established.
The contention of the Board that Kende and Weintraub entered into some ar-
rangement to discharge Chairman on a pretext has little basis in the actual
testimony and rests principally on surmise. Kende had shown animus toward
Chairman after his encounter with Chairman on November 30, but there is not
sufficient proof to establish an arrangement between Kende and Weintraub to
penalize Chairman for testifying. A final consideration is Kende's motive in
upholding Weintraub's demand that Chairman be discharged In view of all the
facts and circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that Kende based his
decision on any animus toward Chairman for testifying rather than on an
evaluation of Weintraub's request based upon its merits. It will therefore be
recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
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. The operations of the respondent, Universal Camera Corporation, constitute
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 3, affiliated
with American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (4) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the complaint against Universal Camera Corpora-
tion, New York, New York, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 20338 of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington
25, 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 ; and any
party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and
four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon
the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, 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. Proof of service on the
;s
13 The respondent submitted four proposed findings of fact. Of these, items 1 and 2 are
accepted, item 3 is rejected, and it is unnecessary to rule on item 4 in view of the findings
herein. Respondent submitted a proposed conclusion, of law and this has been accepted.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 397
other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as re-
quired by Section 203 .65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
SIDNEY L. FELLER,
Trial Exum'irier.
Dated February 18, 1947.