Ward Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 291 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the• Matter of WARD BAKING COMPANY ccnd GERTRUDE WXONROY
Cc$e'No.'C--544.Decided April 30, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon 'complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Gertrude
W., Conroy, an individual, against Ward Baking Company, herein
called the- respondent, a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner
at Boston, Massachusetts, from'February 10 to 12,• 1943, in which the
Board and the respondent,participated by their representatives. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no preju-
dicial errors .were committed. The 'rulings are hereby affirmed.
11 On March 4; 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port finding that the respondent had not engaged in the unfair 'la
practices alleged in the complaint and recommending' that the com-
plaint be dismissed. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
brief were thereafter filed by Conroy. Oral argument was held be-
fore the Board on April 27,1943. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the,
case,, and, hereby affirms and adopts the findings, conclusions, and-
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
:Upon the entire'record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the' National Labor Relations Act, the National, Labor,Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein against the re-
spondent, Ward Baking Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Thomas H. Ramsey, for the Board.
Mr. ,Henry B., Foley, and Mr. F. A. Boudreau, of Boston, Mass.,' for. the
respondent.
x,49:N: L. R B:, No., 37. 291 '
1, 1
531647-43-vol. 49-20
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on March 5, 1942, by Gertrude W. Conroy, an individ-
ual, herein called Conroy, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachu-
setts), issued its complaint dated January 25, 1943, against Ward Baking Com-
pany, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, together with notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
respondent and Conroy.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the respondent: (1) on or about January 25, 1941, discharged Gertrude W.
Conroy, forelady of the cake wrapping department in its Cambridge, Mass., plant,
and thereafter refused to reinstate her because she joined or assisted the
American Federation of-Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., or engaged in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection ; and (2) from on or about December 1, 1940, and at various
times down to and including the date of the issuance of the complaint, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act, by questioning employees regarding their union
membership, advising them not to join the Union and maintaining, surveillance
over members of,the Union. In pursuance-of leave granted' at the hearing, the
respondent filed its answer -dated February 11, 1943, in which it admitted the
allegations of the complaint respecting the nature of its business, but denied,,the
commission of any of the unfair labor practices alleged.
• Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February 10, 11 and 12, 1943, at
Boston, Massachusetts, before Mortimer Riemer, the undersigned' Trial Examiner,
duly, designated by,the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and'pai•ticipated 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 conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied. At the conclusion of the hear-,
ing, the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to names
and dates, which motion was granted over objection of counsel for the re-
spondent. Decision was reserved on the motion of counsel for the respondent
to dismiss the complaint. This motion is now granted: After all the evidence
had been adduced, counsel for the Board and the respondent presented oral
argument on the record before,the undersigned. Although advised that they
might do so, all parties waived the right to file briefs with the undersigned.
.'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
1 ,
1 , 1
..The • respondent, Ward Baking Company, a New `York • corporation with its
principal office at New York, operates` a bread and cake baking plant at Cam-'
bridge, Massachusetts. The present proceeding is concerned only with' this plant.
During the first 6 months of 1942, the respondent purchased raw materials for
use at Cambridge, consisting of flour, sugar, shortening, eggs and milk, amount-
i
- WARD BAKING COMPANY 293
ing in value to $754,530„ 70 percent of which raw material was-shipped to the
Cambridge plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
,During the same period, the value of finished products produced at the Cam-
bridge plant amounted to more than $2,000,000, over 10 percent of which repre-
sented shipments to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
respondent , as of September 17, 1942, employed 633 employees at Cambridge.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Alleged interference, restraint and coercion ; the discharge of Conroy
Gertrude W. Conroy, until the time of her discharge on January- 25, 1941, had
been in the respondent's employ for about 23 years. During that period Conroy
had risen from the position of cake wrapper at a weekly range of $6 to the
position of forelady of the cake wrapping department earning $36.25 a week.
As forelady, Conroy supervised on the average the work of about 50 female
employees engaged in wrapping by hand and machine the varieties of cake pro-
duced in the respondent's plant. The record is clear that Conroy maintained
production levels and on that score there was no complaint about her work.
In 'June 1937, the respondent entered into a contract with Bakery andf Con-
fectionery Workers' International Union of America, Local No. 348, affiliated
with the A. F. of L., herein called the Union, covering all of the respondent's
production and maintenance employees. The contract was renewed from time
to time thereafter and at the time of the hearing the respondent was operating
under contract with the Union.
These contracts contained provisions establishing machinery for the settlement
of employee grievances, first with heads of departments wherein the grievance
arose and in the event of non-settlement, with higher management officials. In
this way differences between supervisors and employees over working conditions
were brought to the attention of Frank E. Wolfe, plant manager, Albert E. Tolley,
chief production supervisor, and Mary Wallace, traveling supervising forewoman,
the latter two from the respondent's New Yo'rk'office.
On Saturday, January 25, 1941, during the lunch hour, Conroy was summoned
to Wolfe's office and told by him that her services were no longer required. Wolfe,
upon being asked for an explanation, stated to Conroy that he had been con-
sidering a change for some time and this was the time for the change.' It is
the contention of the Board that Conroy's discharge was due to her activity during
the few days previous to January 25, in attempting to organize a supervisor's
union in the respondent's plant. The respondent contends that she was discharged
because of a long history of failure-to obtain the cooperation of the girls under
her' supervision due to alleged favoritism and harshness in the performance of
her'duties and that the decision to discharge her had been made on January 21,
prior to her union activities, and at a time therefore when the respondent neither
had nor could have had any knowledge of those activities.
In support of its contention the respondent called numerous witnesses including
supervisors, employees and union officials who testified that Conroy abused-and
antagonized the employees in her department, that the Union 'complained about
Conroy's attitude and conduct'and that for that reason the respondent discharged
Conroy.
e
"This finding is based upon the testimony of Conroy. Wolfe's.testimony concerning the
discharge 'was not substantially different. He testified : "I told her that I was letting her
out, and I was dissatisfied with conditions'in the cake shop, and she remarked that she was
expecting it. And I believe that she also said that I would be sorry for it."
e,
294 DECISIONS OF- NiATIO NV,AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
' 'Members of the Union called as witnesses by the respondent testified that they
had lodged numerous complaints with Wolfe about Conroy's attitude and conduct
towards the employees in her department., George, D. McGoldrick, the Union's
first shop steward and later its president, testified that from 1939 on he was
informed of employee grievances -against Conroy in which Conroy was charged
with failing to allow the girls proper rest periods, and favoring certain workers
over others in the matter of overtime.
Stasia Ferry, who was the first shop steward in Conroy's department, a witness
called by the Board in rebuttal, testified, that employees registered complaints to
her about "every petty thing" that Conroy did; that she spoke to Conroy; the
grievances were adjusted, but began again ; that Conroy lost her temper and'would
"bawl out" the girls and they, resented Conroy's attitude. Ferry took these mat-
ters,up with Burris, the business agent. Connie Spitaleri, the shop steward who
succeeded Ferry, testified that in 1940 she spoke to,Conroy about favoritism and
her failure to observe the, provisions of the union contract pertaining to rest
periods. Spitaleri testified that unrest and, dissension prevailed in Conroy's
department throughout 1939 and 1940 because Conroy "kept picking on one girl
right after.another, . . . seemed.to get satisfaction out of seeing the girls cry,"
and,insisted on the girls being at their work places five minutes before the starting
hour. Spitaleri likewise spoke of these affairs to Burns. Burns testified that
from 1937 on.there were grievances in the cafe wrapping department; that union
members, complained to him of, Conroy's sarcasm and failure to allow relief
periods ; that he, too, spoke to Conroy about the complaints and in turn was
told to take the matter up with Wolfe since it was the Union and no Conroy
that was running the department. Burns discussed these matters wih Wolfe,
Wallace, Albert Tolley, and Robert Tolley, the latter at that time a supervising
foreman. Conroy's dismissal was not sought but Wolfe and others were told
according to Burns that if the respondent "couldn't get a forelady that would
carry out orders of the manager, the management ought to get a new forelady." 2
WVolfe, Wallace, Albert and Robert Tolley testified in, substance that, they were
aware of these complaints ; that they conferred with union representatives and
Conroy about them,;'that Conroy, was cautioned and warned ,to mend her ways,
cooperate with the employees and the Union and to avoid action or conduct that
would antagonize the workers. Albert Tolley testified for example `-`,that Mrs.
Conroy could not get along,with the help in the plant, the girls who were wrapping
cake" ; that the biggest complaint about Conroy washer, inability to adjust herself
to conditions brought about by union recognition ; that she was partial to certain
employees ; and that at a grievance committee meeting with Union representatives
late in the summer- of 1940, Conroy was told that unless she could control the
girls, in her, department,,,she>was.ahrough. e Robert Tolley corroborated the, testi-
money of Albert Tolley. Wolfe's testimony was, substantially the ' save concern-
ing Conroy's conduct and he testified that in 1940,he and Wallace discussed the
possibility of replacing Conroy, as forelady.
Although Conroy denied knowledge of,these grievances and asserted that there
was no valid cause for complaint in,the, way she handled her department, the
undersigned cannot credit her denials in the face. of, voluminous, and credible
testimony 'to the contrary. Conroy, admitted that, she was • criticized at times
but insisted that it was for routine matters. According to her own testimony
she was so dissatisfied with conditions in her department early in 1940 that she
2 Burns complained also but the conduct of six other'supervisors. He testified that
there were more complaints about Conroy." It appears that Meister was laid off in July
1942 as a result of the Union's complaints.'
WARD BAKING ' COMPANY
J
295
declared her intention to quit to Robert Tolley. It may be true that many of the
Union's grievances were, as characterized by Ferry, petty and made because
the Union took advantage of its contract with the respondent. But whether
justified or not,' it is clear that complaints continued against Conroy throughout
1940,and the Union placed them before the respondent for,action. I ,
Sometime in the summer of 1940 Wallace was asked by Albert Tolley to seek
another forelady for, the Cambridge plant. Wallace thereupon, asked Gladys
Backman, • an employee in the respondent's Bronx, New York plant, who had
once 'been an assistant forelady, if she was available to fill a forelady' s job in
the Cambridge plant in the event a vacancy occurred. Backman stated she was
available but Wallace thereafter did nothing to qualify Backman further for the
Cambridge post.- In September 1940, Burns and' McGoldrick, on a visit to New
York, complained to Executive Vice-President Barber about Conroy's lack of
cooperation with the Union and asked that Barber do something about it. Barber
asked the Union representatives for time in which to adjust the matter. In the
same month, according to Wolfe's testimony, which is credited, he and Albert
Tolley decided with respect to Conroy "that there would be a change made as
soon as possible."
Although, ,as Albert Tolley testified,and as the undersigned, finds, Wolfe had
sought permission to discharge Conroy, early in 1940, the respondent held off
decision with'respect thereto because of Conroy's long service and its desire to
give her every, opportunity to improve. The complaints against Conroy con-
tinued and in late November or early December 1940, Wolfe again asked that
Conroy be dismissed. The decision to discharge Conroy was finally made- on
January 21,1941. On that day Albert Tolley wrote Wolfe in part as follows :
,Your Assistant Forelady has already been changed as you know. Miss
Wallace has been training a young lady to replace your Forelady Mrs.
Gertie Conroy. This change shall be made during the week of January 27th.
Miss Wallace shall be in your plant on Monday, January 27th to get the new
Forelady started. It is customary when making changes to give the dis-
charged department head two weeks pay.3
Following the receipt of the letter, Wolfe, on January 25, 1941, discharged Conroy
as related above
About a month prior to the discharge Conroy asked Jack Turner, the head
shipper, and George Menter, the head porter, whether they would be interested
in having her obtain information about forming a supervisors' union in the
respondent's plant. There is no proof, however, that Conroy took any active steps
to organize such a ,union until after her sister's demotion, which occurred on
January 20. Conroy admitted that it was only after her sister's demotion that
she talked with Burns, the Union's business agent, and that it was probably the
day following that interview that Burns took her to John Murphy, the New Eng-
land director for the A. F. of L., who gave her application blanks to use in
soliciting members.' By January 21, however, the respondent, as is evidenced
by the communi cation of that date addressed by Tolley to Wolfe, had already
determined to discharge Conroy. The earliest date fixed for any of her solicita-
tions was January 22, in the testimony of Cameron Meany, an order clerk formerly
8 The letter, a copy of which was sent to Robert Tolley, also instructed Wolfe to demote
O'Brien, an assistant foreman , and place Semmler, a supervisor , on probation. The Union
had complained about the actions of these two men. The Assistant Forelady referred to a
Alice Larson, Conroy's,sister, who was demoted to the position of head wrapper on January
20, 1941. ' '
a Murphy advised Conroy that in the event she obtained the signed applications of six
clerical employees , the A. F. of • L. would issue a charter for a Federal local to which de-
partment heads would be admitted. I ,
296 DiECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
employed by the respondent , and the earliest date of any of the signed applica-
tions obtained by Conroy was January 24; 1941.
Not only is the record-devoid of proof that Conroy's union activities com-
menced - as early as January 21 , but there is also a complete absence of proof
that, even if her activities had commenced as early as January 20 or 21, they had
come of the respondent's notice. Nor is there proof that at the time Albert Tolley
wrote the letter of January, 21, 1941, authorizing Conroy's discharge, he or Wolfe
knew of Conroy's labor activity. Up to about this date, Conroy had by her own
'testimony, confined her activity to discussions with two employees, Turner and
Menter, and had obtained their acquiescence in seeking further union informa-
tion. This information Conroy sought for the first time on or about January 20,
when,she called upon Burns. There is not a 'scintilla of evidence that Albert
Tolley was aware'of this fact when he wrote his letter of January 21, 1941.
-The fact that during the few days immediately preceding her discharge on Jan-
uary 25, Conroy had spoken to about 12 clerical employees about joining, can
therefore have had,no part in motivating her discharge.
The Board introduced testimony for the purpose of establishing anti-union
expressions by the respondent at the time of and following Conroy's discharge.
Meany,' who was solicited by Conroy on Januar r 22, testified that in the same
afternoon Clarence W. Gunning, Meany's superior and the respondent's chief
clerk, talked to Meany in the office, or called Meany aside in the back locker room
(in which respect Meany's testimony is not clear) and said to him: "I understand
3 ou are mixing in- the union again. . . . You know, anyone that values their
position in this office wants to stay clear of all unions. We have had that discus-
sion before " 5 Gunning, the only other participant in this alleged conversation,
denied Meany's testimony, could not recall any specific conversation with Meany
on January 22, but admitted that he might have conversed with him because
both men worked in the same department. The undersigned was not impressed
with Meany as a witness He was verbose and talkative and the circumstances
of his later discharge in June 1942, indicate to the undersigned that be was a
partisan and biased witness. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Gunning
did not make the remarks attributed to him by Meany:
George N. Menter, the respondent's head porter, testified that he overheard
a conversation between Robert Tolley, supervising foreman, and Harold Bloom-
field, purchasing agent, wherein the former is alleged to have said to Bloomfield:
"I saw Joe O'Connell down talking to Gertie. Find out what they were talking
about." Mentor could not fix the time of this conversation except to place it
prior to Conroy's discharge. Conroy fixed her conversation with O'Connell on
January 25, 1941. Bloomfield did not testify. Robert Tolley denied uttering
these remarks to Bloomfield, testifying further that he was doubtful whether
he knew O'Connell. Assuming that Tolley had observed a conversation between
O'Connell and Conroy, it is doubtful in the undersigned's opinion, that he would
have ordered Bloomfield to ascertain the substance of the conversation or chosen
the .very moment that Menter passed by to issue such a direction. The under-
signed accepts Tolley's denial and finds that no, such conversation was held
-between Robert Tolley and Bloomfield. -
In addition Conroy testified that on returning to the cake department after
her discharge by. Wolfe,' she met Robert Tolley and even before mentioning her
discharge, Tolley attempted to console her by stating: "Now, don't tell me any
of your plans, because what I don't know,_ 1 can't repeat, and then you won't
blame me for anything." She testified in addition that Tolley mentioned the,
instance of an acquaintance of his who also had tried to organize employees and
- 6 Meany testified that therefore he did not sign an A. F. of L. application.
WARD BAKING COMPANY 297
was left "holding the bag" 'and that he stated : " I want to tell you, that is just
what is, going to-happen to you.... You area good forelady. They couldn't
get any better ." Conroy testified that the conversation was-a long one wherein
they also discussed mismanagement in the plant . She could not recall any of
the details of the conversation other than related above. Robert Tolley denied
any conversation with Conroy on the afternoon of her discharge although admit-
ting several conversations with her subsequent thereto. As will appear hereafter,-
Tolley had been apprised earlier in the week of Conroy's impending dismissal.
The undersigned is not persuaded that Tolley would voluntarily suggest the
discharge was due to Conroy's labor activity rather than for business reasons.
The undersigned is of the opinion that Conroy was so distraught by the experience
of discharge after long years of service, that she confused and enlarged upon
other conversations she may have had with Robert Tolley both before and after
her discharge. The undersigned is not persuaded that the conversation occurred
as testified to by Conroy."
Following her discharge, Conroy continued her efforts to organize. At least
one A. F. of L. application, identified at the hearing, was dated April 25, 1941
In the interim following her discharge Conroy met on one or more occasions
with Mary Wallace. At one of these meetings at the Kenmore Hotel in Boston,
Conroy told Wallace that she had been discharged for her union activities.
According to Conroy, Wallace told her she was foolish trying to organize de
partment heads ; that the respondent's officials were laughing at her efforts ; that
Conroy lacked the education and ability to do such a job and that she was
hurting her chance of future employment in the industry. Wallace identified
one dinner meeting with Conroy wherein she told Conroy that her dismissal
was caused by her failure to cooperate with Wolfe ; that Conroy in reply
attributed her discharge to union activities and stated that she could have been
a business agent like "Red" Burns and that Wallace answered that this was
a foolish idea, Conroy lacking the experience and qualifications to be a union
business agent. Wallace denied telling Conroy that the respondent's leading
officials were laughing at her organizing efforts On a review of all the evidence
pertaining to these discussions the undersigned is of the opinion that the version
given by Wallace is, on the whole, the one that accords more nearly with the
truth
Menter testified that about three or four weeks after Conroy's discharge, Robert
Tolley stated to him: "I hear Gertie [Conroy] is trying to organize the depart-
ment heads." He testified also, that on other occasions, the times of which
he could not fix, Tolley asked him if he had seen Conroy, inquired about "the
union", wanted to know if Menter had joined and how Conroy was "coming along
with the union". Menter admitted that these were friendly conversations
Robert Tolley, on the contrary, testified that on two occasions two to three weeks
after Conroy's discharge, Menter initiated discussions with him wherein he
stated that Conroy was soliciting him for membership in a union and that
Tolley replied, "What are you telling me for? Why don't you tell your boss?
" Following . her discharge , Conroy went to see John Murphy who referred her to Aaron
Vellemen , an A F. of L . organizer. Velleman filed charges on Conroy's behalf with the
Board alleging a discriminatory discharge . These charges were dated January 27, 1941,
and were filed by Federal Labor Union No. 14965, A. F. of L. Without notice to Conroy,
the charges were withdrawn without prejudice by Velleman on February 11, 1941. The
respondent was notified of this fact . Conroy first learned that charges had been with-
drawn in September 1941 On September 25, 1941, Conroy filed charges on, her own
behalf but at her request they were not filed as of record pending her application for
reinstatement . On Maich 5 , 1942, Conroy again filed charges upon which the present'pro-
ceeding is based.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
I haven't anything to do with -that". Tolley testified further that he "certainly
wouldn't be going around, to a porter boss talking about labor union matters."
The undersigned credits Tolley's denials.,
Sometime after Conroy's discharge, both Wallace and Robert Tolley suggested
that Conroy try to obtain a transfer or employment elsewhere in the respondent's
system. It is clear that Conroy declined to accept these suggestions, on'the
ground that she was unwilling to leave her home. Nor is there any evidence that
Conroy approached Wolfe and asked reinstatement from him. She did ask
Robert Tolley for a reference shortly after her discharge but this was refused
on the ground that he had no authority to issue one. In October 1941, Conroy
wrote Albert Tolley a letter seeking reinstatement. In reply to Conroy's letter,'
Albert Tolley wrote on November 18, 1941:
• There were points in it with which I do not agree. The main one being
where j took sides against you in one of the early meetings with representa-
tives of the union.
There never was a bit of doubt about your desire to keep your job,
but unfortunately things happened which made a change necessary.
When this time came, I think,you made a mistake in the attitude you
took. This, however, does not mean that you will not receive some con-
sideration if an opportunity presents itself. '
Tolley testified that by "mistake in the attitude" mentioned in his letter, he meant
Conroy's "attitude towards the different girls, the way she would favor some
and not favor others." The undersigned credits Tolley's testimony.
Although Conroy continued her union activity following her discharge and,
by reason of her meetings with Wallace, the respondent must have known of
Conroy's labor interest, the undersigned is not persuaded upon a review of all
the evidence, that Conroy was refused reinstatement because of her concerted
activities. More persuasive as the grounds for refusing reinstatement at Cam-
bridge, was the testimony of employees called by the respondent that they did
not want to work under Conroy and the respondent's obvious efforts, as in-
dicated by the entire record, to cooperate with the Union.
Upon a review of all the evidence and in the considered judgment of the
undersigned there is lacking clear and persuasive evidence sufficient to warrant
a finding that Conroy was discharged and thereafter refused reinstatement, be-
cause of her union membership or concerted activities, or that the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned will therefore rec-
ommend 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. Ward Baking Company is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. The respondent, Ward Baking Company, has not engaged in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning•of Section 8 (1) or (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the'
undersigned recommends that the complaint against the respondent, Ward Bak-
ing Company, be dismissed.
WARD BAKING COMPANY - 299
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National' Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party 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, Shoreham Building, Washing-
ton, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in 'writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report to 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
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 to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board. ' '
MORTIMER RIEMER,
Trial Examiner.
Date March 4, 1943