Waynesboro Knitting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 113 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of WAYNESBORO KNITTING COMPANY and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 6-CA-62.-Decided June 6, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 17, 1950, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper 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 in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
'the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed an opposing brief.
The Boarcl1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no' prejudicial error was colnmitted.2
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 findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
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 complaint issued herein
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and 'Members Reynolds and Styles].
2 At the start of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by the Respondent
.to dismiss a paragraph of the complaint on the ground that it did not allege the com-
mission of an unfair labor practice. The paragraph in question alleged that the Re-
spondent was responsible for certain statements and expressions tending to discourage
concerted activities and union membership. As discouragement of such activities may
well include illegal restraining and coercive conduct, as well as permissible expressions
of opinion, this allega.ton of the complaint was sufficiently broad to support findings of
Section 8 (a) (1) violations if the evidence so warranted. Tile. Trial Examiner's ruling
granting the motion was therefore erroneous and is hereby reversed.
1Tre find, however, that the ruling was not prejudicial, as all the evidence relied upon
by the General Counsel to support that particular paragraph, received in evidence as
relevant to other unfair labor practice allegations of the complaint, has been considered
and found insufficient to support any unfair labor practice finding.
90 NLRB No. 26.
113
903847-51-vol. 90-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against Respondent , Waynesboro Knitting Company, Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania , be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Messrs. Emil E. Narick and Eugene K. Kennedy, for the General Counsel.
Rice & Hannis, by aLessrs. L. I. Rice and D. H. Rodgers, Jr., of Martinsburg,
W. Va., for Respondent.
Messrs. Samuel J. Fiore, Edmund F. Ryan, Jr. and C. P. Ellington, for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on January 8, 1948, by Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO (hereinafter called the Union,) the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board (hereinafter called the Board), by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Sixth Region, (Pittsburgh, Pa.), issued a complaint dated June
10, 1949, against Waynesboro Knitting Company (hereinafter called Respond-
ent), alleging that Respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and
(3), and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(hereinafter called the Act), 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. Supp. I, Sees. 141, et seq.
Copies of the charge, the complaint, and a notice of hearing were duly served
upon Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor. Oractices, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance that Respondent : (1) From on or about September 1, 1947, to the date
of the issuance of the complaint, made or authorized statements and expres-
sions tending to discourage concerted and union activities and union mem-
bership among its employees; (2) discharged Donald C. Flohr, its employee, on
or about November 24, 1947, and has since failed and refused to reinstate said
Flohr, because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union,
and other concerted activities; and (3) by the foregoing conduct engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the
Act.
Respondent's answer admitted certain allegations of the complaint with
respect to the nature,of its business but denied the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices, and affirmatively alleged that Flohr was laid off because of the installa-
tion of technological improvements.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, from
June 28 to July 1, 1949, inclusive, before the undersigned, Robert L. Piper,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by
representatives. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties.
At the opening of the hearing, Respondent moved to dismiss paragraph 4 (a)
and (b) of the complaint, which alleged statements and expressions by Respond-
ent tending to discourage concerted and union activities and Membership, on
the grounds that no unfair labor practice was alleged in the absence of any
allegation of threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. The motion
was granted.'
1 The General Counsel did not avail himself of the opportunity to amend the complaint.
r
WAYNESBORO KNITTING COMPANY 115
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the General Counsel
moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of paragraph 4 (a) and (b) of the
complaint on the grounds that the evidence adduced established the alleged
violation of the Act. This motion was denied? Respondent's motion to dis-
miss the complaint for failure of proof was denied. Upon renewal thereof at
the close of the hearing, ruling was reserved thereon and is disposed of by
the findings and conclusions hereinafter made. A motion made at the close of
the hearing by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with
respect to minor variances was granted.
Oral argument was heard from counsel. Respondent waived the filing of a
brief. The General Counsel requested and received time to file a brief. No
brief was received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining its principal office
and plant at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale , and distribution of ladies ' and men's knit underwear and related
products. During the year immediately preceding this hearing, Respondent in
the operation of its business purchased materials of a value in excess of $100,-
000, of which approximately 75 percent was purchased outside the State of
Pennsylvania, and sold finished products of a value in excess of $100,000, of
which approximately 70 percent was sold and delivered outside the State of
Pennsylvania. These facts were stipulated by the parties. Respondent admits,
and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is 'a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Flohr
As previously noted, the single purported allegation in the complaint of inde-
pendent interference, restraint, and coercion was dismissed and this ruling was
reiterated after receipt of the evidence, which clearly failed to establish any
acts constituting independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
This leaves as the sole issue for consideration the alleged discriminatory
discharge of Donald C. Flohr.
Respondent operates its manufacturing plant in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.
The plant is divided into several departments, each headed by a superintendent.
The rayon knitting department operates a number of machines. The employees
in that department are a foreman , a number of machine operators , machine fixers,
several winder operators , and some inspectors . The number varies depending
upon the number of machines in production . The foreman is also a fixer and
2 The evidence adduced by the General Counsel , which was received in support of the
Allegations of violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, clearly establishes that the conduct
complained of was protected free speech under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spends most of his time doing such work. The fixers are mechanics who make
the necessary repairs.on the machines.
In February 1941, Flohr started to work for Respondent in the knitting de-
partment as an operator. In August 1942, Flohr quit but returned in December
and started to work as a fixer. In February 1943, Flohr was transferred to the
night shift as foreman-fixer. Be requested transfer back to day work in Decem-
her, which was granted, and he reverted to the status of fixer at a lower wage.
He remained on this job until terminated on November 24, 1947.
Glenn Miller was the day foreman-fixer, and as such was Flohr's immediate
supervisor after he returned to day work. Respondent strenuously contended
that Miller was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act because most of
his time was spent working as a fixer. However, the undisputed evidence, most
of which was adduced by Respondent's witnesses, shows that Miller was in charge
of the operators and fixers, made daily work and machine assignments, disciplined
employees, reported employees' faults to the superintendent, exercised a portion
of the superintendent's functions daily and all of them in his absence, received
reports of defective work by operators and fixers from the inspectors, criticized
employee work and qualities, instructed new employees and inspected the opera-
tions in his department, made reports to the superintendent, and generally re-
sponsibly directed the work of all the operators, fixers, and inspectors. In addi-
tion it was conceded that a portion of Miller's, pay was for supervision, and that
the same was true with respect to Flohr while be was the night foreman. Miller
concededly did not have the power to hire or fire, but did make recommendations
and reports concerning employees to his superior. The undisputed evidence con-
vinces me, and I so find, that Miller was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.'
The events in issue took place during the late summer and fall of 1947. Some-
time in August, Samuel J. Fiore, a national representative of the Union, came
to Waynesboro for organizational activities. On September 15, he and several
assistants handed out union pamphlets at Respondent's 2 gates, This was
repeated about 8 times up to and through December. Respondent was aware
of this activity. The first distribution was immediately followed by a union
organization meeting, which was attended by 7 or 8 of Respondent's employees,
including Flohr. A second union meeting was held on September 24, again
attended by 7 or 8 including Flohr. At this meeting most of those present signed
union application cards and were given additional cards to solicit fellow em-
ployees. Flohr passed out about 20 union application cards, but only 1 during
working hours, and did not discuss the subject or wait for a signature, but merely
asked the employees to return the cards later. Flohr did secure about 11 signers.
The third and last union meeting was held about October 20, and only Flohr
attended.,
During July Respondent started to install electrical stop-motion devices on its
knitting machines, and completed the installation by January 1948. In Novem-
ber 1947, all of the machines in operation at the time had had such devices in-
stalled. During this period, Respondent had about 11 or 12 employees in the
rayon knitting department. They were the foreman-fixer (Miller), 2 other
fixers, 1 inspector, 5 or 6 machine operators, and 2 winder operators. The 2
fixers were Flohr and Richard Burns. While Burns had worked for Respondent
off and on since 1941, he had not become a fixer until April, 1947, more than 4 years
3 Ohio Power Company v. N. L. R. B., 176 F. 2d 385 (C. A. 6) ; Acne Breweries,. 86
NLRB 1098.
WAYNESBORO KNITTING COMPANY 117
after Flohr. On November 24, Snowberger, superintendent of Respondent's
rayon knitting department, advised Flohr that the installation of the stop-motion
devices reduced the need for fixers, and that Respondent was laying him off as
the poorest fixer of the three. Flohr left the plant. Either that day or the
next. Flohr contacted Reid, Respondent's vice president and general manager,
concerning his layoff and Reid advanced substantially the same reasons.
B. Evidence adduced by the General Counsel
Practically the only evidence adduced in support of the alleged discriminatory
discharge was that given by Flohr. Substantially, his testimony was that he
had joined the Union on September 15, had attended the three meetings, and
had solicited membership in the Union. It was undisputed that no one repre-
senting management was aware of Flohr's solicitations, that only once had he
handed out a card during working hours, and that this took a very short time,
as he did not discuss the matter and did not ask the employee to sign at the
time. He admitted that no management representative ever witnessed. his
activity in passing out cards. He did testify that he gave a card to Lowe, a
patternmaker and Reid's nephew. Flohr testified that Miller, his foreman, was
aware of his Union membership. Flohr said that after the meeting of September
24, Miller told him at the plant that Flohr was at the meeting. Flohr further
testified that he told Miller he was at the meeting and Miller said, "all right,
it isn't any of my business." Miller, Flohr, and two other employees rode in a
car-pool after work. On October 15,. Flohr met Fiore outside the plant on the
sidewalk and left Miller and the others waiting in the car while he discussed with
Fiore wage rates at the Utica mills for work similar to that in Respondent's
plant. Flohr claimed that this was within sight of Miller and that after he got
back iii the car he told Miller and the others that union members at Utica made
twice as much pay as Respondent's employees. He and Fiore agreed their con-
versation lasted around 8 minutes, but could not be heard in the car. Fiore was
unable to identify Miller as an occupant of the car. No one else testified that
he was. '
Flohr said that the next morning when he came to work, Snowberger and
Miller were talking at Snowberger's desk and failed to say good morning to him.
He also testified that from then on Respondent watched him closely and gave
hint more "dirty" work. He was unable to give any instances of "watching" by
anyone specifically, and admitted the "dirty" work referred to was his regular
job, but contended he was given extra amounts of the less desirable tasks, al-
though not working any longer hours than before. He was unable to further
elucidate this contention. Flohr admitted the installation of the stop-motion
devices and while first denying that they resulted in less fixing work, subse-
quently admitted that they did. He admitted that no other incidents occurred,
.no threats were made and that other than Miller, no representative of manage-
ment was aware of his union membership or activities.
On November 24, 1947, Snowberger came up to Flohr and told him to get his
tool box and leave. He told Flohr his work was unsatisfactory and said "some-
thing about the stop-motions cutting the need for help." Snowberger agreed
with Flohr that he was the oldest fixer other than Miller. Flohr asked Snow-
berger if it was because of the Union and Snowberger replied that he knew
nothing about the Union. Flohr then left. Later he returned and saw Reid,
asking him for an explanation. Reid told him it was because the stop-motion
devices reduced the need for fixers and advised him not to work against ,the
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
company he was with. Flohr also asked Reid about the Union and said that
Reid made no reply. Flohr further said that in response to his inquiry Reid
told him he would not be blacklisted. All of the above is Flohr's version of what
happened. He pointed out that he had been a fixer longer than Burns, had been
a foreman-fixer for a period,. and should not have been laid off because of
seniority.
Portner, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified that he heard Miller
say, during a discussion of the Union among the workers, that he knew how
many had attended the union meeting, and that he could not say anything for
or against the Union. Bryan, another witness for the General Counsel, said
that Miller had once told him that he (Miller) had no use for the Union which
represented employees in a plant where Bryan had formerly worked. This was
not the union in this case.
• C. Evidence adduced by Respondent
Undisputed expert evidence, as well as the testimony of Respondent's officials,
clearly established that the installation of the electric stop-motion devices re-
duced breakage, machine damage, and broken needles, and resulted in substan-
tially less fixing work. It was also undisputed that Respondent had no seniority
policy in the plant, and reduced its force when necessary on the basis of merit
rather than seniority. It was further established that on November 24, all the
operating knitting machines had been equipped with the stop-motion devices.
Miller, Flohr's foreman, corroborated his own functions as foreman. He testi-
fied that Flohr was a less efficient worker than Burns and that he had reported
Flohr's deficiencies to Snowberger upon occasion. However, he testified, and it
was both corroborated and undisputed, that he had nothing to do with the decision
to terminate Flohr, and was unaware of it until after it occurred. He' denied
that he had any knowledge of Flohr's union membership or activities, and denied
ever discussing the Union with Flohr. He stated that he was not present in
the car when Flohr met Fiore and never heard Flohr discuss the wages paid at
the Utica mills. Miller lived. one block from the plant and only rode with the
others occasionally. He denied ever sitting in the car for any period of around
8 minutes while only a block from home. He said that he had no recollection
of not speaking to Flohr on the morning of October 16, but denied that he had
treated Flobr in any different manner after that date. He also denied that
Flohr had any different or dirtier work after that date, and pointed out that he
himself, as foreman-fixer, did the most difficult fixing. Miller testified that after
November 24, he and Burns did all the fixing and no one replaced Flohr. He
also said that after Burns quit in 1948, he handled all of the fixing work alone.
In each case this was because of the reduction in such work by the installation
of the stop-motion devices. Miller further denied making any statements to
Portner about the Union.
It was undisputed that Miller was the best fixer, so the choice narrowed to
Burns and Flohr. Some effort was made by the General Counsel to prove that
Flohr's work was handled by others after he left. However, the record estab-
lishes only that all of the operators upon occasion when their work was slack
helped to do incidental fixing jobs of lesser complexity, and that such had always
been the practice in the plant. The record convinces me, and I find, that Re-
spondent assigned no one to replace Flohr as a fixer.
Snowberger, Respondent's superintendent, testified that some time before
November 24 he and Reid had discussed the matter of layoffs because of the
WAYNIISBORO KNITTING COMPANY 119
stop-motion devices, and that they had agreed that when the time came, Flohr
should be laid off because Burns was a better fixer. The record reveals that
from Respondent's viewpoint Burns was the better. It will serve no useful pur-
pose to document the evidence with respect to the quality of Flohr's work. In
any event, it is unessential, as the real question is the reason for his layoff, and
not the basis for its formation. Snowberger denied any knowledge of Flohr's
union activities, and said that he had not discussed Flohr's layoff with Miller.
Because Snowberger did the hiring and firing, Reid left to him the decision as
to the appropriate time. No evidence was adduced to show that Snowberger
had any knowledge of Flohr's union activities. Snowberger denied that Flohr's
layoff had any connection therewith. He said that on November 24 he told
Flohr he was being let go because of the stop-motion devices and that Flohr
merely said O. K. and left. He denied that Flohr asked him anything about the
Union. He also denied that he told Flohr to leave at once, and said he was
surprised when Flohr did not return in the afternoon to complete the day. He
told Flohr that he was less satisfactory than Burns and that was the basis for
the decision. Snowberger explained that while Flohr was a fixer longer than
Burns, and had been a foreman for a period, that during that time help had
been difficult to get because of the war, and that in spite of Flohr's experience,
Burns was a better fixer. He admitted knowledge of the union distribution of
pamphlets, but knew nothing about any employees joining. As far as he knew,
the plant had never had a union. He also denied treating Flohr any differently
after October 16, and could not recall the incident when Flohr said that Snow-
berger and Miller did not say good morning. He further denied Flohr's work
assignments were any different after October 16, and pointed out that they were
probably lighter because the stop-motion devices had reduced the fixing work to
some extent by that time. He corroborated the fact that no one replaced Flohr,
and that Miller had been the only fixer employed since Burns left. He denied
watching Flohr closer after October 16. He also corroborated that all operators
helped do occasional fixing work when their own work was slack, and that this
was a custom in the department.
Reid, Respondent's general manager, testified that he and Snowberger reached
the decision on the termination of Flohr, and that Miller knew nothing about
it. Reid also denied any knowledge of Flohr's union activity. He corroborated
Snowberger's statement that Burns was retained as the better fixer, and that
he (Reid) left to Snowberger the decision as to when to terminate Flohr, based
upon the status of the installation of the stop-motion devices. He admitted
knowledge of the union handbills. Reid said that when he saw Flohr after his
layoff he advised Flohr it was because the stop-motion devices resulted in less
fixing work and in Respondent's opinion the other fixers were better. He ad-
mitted that Flohr asked if it was because he had joined the Union and said
that he told Flohr, "Donald, that is news to me. I didn't know you were a
Union member." He also testified that before Flohr asked about the Union, he
had advised Flohr that he should always work for the best interests of his
boss and company, and if he did so, he would never have to worry about having
a job. Reid explained that he had reference to Flohr's qualities as a workman
and employee, and was then unaware of Flohr's union activities. Reid also
testified that no one was employed to replace Flohr.
D. Conclusions and ultimate findings
The undisputed evidence in the record established that the installation of
the stop-motion devices did reduce the fixing work, and consequently the need
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for fixers, and that Respondent's policy concerning reductions in force was to
retain employees on the basis of merit rather than seniority. It was also undis-
puted that Respondent's officials, other than Miller, had no knowledge of
Flohr's union activities, and that Miller was not consulted and was unaware of
the decision to terminate Flohr. Miller himself denied that he knew of Flohr's
union activities, and under all of the circumstances, it seems probable to me that
lie did not. It is not essential, however, to resolve this issue, because it is
immaterial whether Miller knew of Flohr's union activities if this had nothing
to do with his termination. I am convinced, and find from a preponderance of
the credible evidence, that Reid and Snowberger had no knowledge of Flour's
union activities when he was terminated.
The General Counsel made no attempt to refute the evidence that the installa-
tion of stop-motion devices reduced the need for fixers, and that Respondent
reduced its working force on the basis of merit rather than seniority. On the
basis of this record, the General Counsel's contention, shorn of its embellishments
and reduced to its bare essentials, seems to be that if an employee joins a union
and engages in union activity, a discharge or termination by an employer amounts
to discrimination. The inadequacy of such a position needs no elaboration.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's officials were aware, of Flohr's
union. activities, the General Counsel has failed to prove a termination for dis-
criminatory reasons. I The record is utterly barren of any antiunion conduct
by Respondent. The failure of proof as to the alleged interference, restraint,
and coercion.has previously been found. At best, Flohr seemed to be grasping
at straws to make out a case. His testimony of officials not saying good morn-
ing, of being "watched" but ' not seeing anyone watching him, and of being
assigned extra "dirty" work but not being able to elaborate on this contention,
illustrates this point. His union activity which. might have come to the atten-
tion of Respondent was to say the most fragmentary. In a plant of over 400
employees, he handed out 1 union card during working hours, with the officials
in view, the whole transaction apparently taking less than a minute.
Reid and Snowberger both testified credibly that they decided to terminate
Flohr because they thought Burns was a better fixer. It is clearly established
that Flohr was not replaced, and that some 7 months later when Burns resigned,
he was not replaced and Miller alone handled the fixing-work. Even assuming
that Respondent's officials knew of Flohr's union activities, there is nothing in
the record to indicate that such activities were the reason for his termination.
Under all of the circumstances, and upon consideration of the entire record,
the preponderance of credible evidence convinces. me and I so find, that Respond-
ent did not discriminatorily discharge or terminate Flohr because of his union
membership or activities, but on the contrary, terminated Flohr without dis-
crimination because of a reduction in work.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact,. and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (0)
and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
WAYNESBORO KNITTING COMPANY 121.
RECOIIDIENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and'
upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the complaint against
Respondent be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order 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 six copies of a brief in support thereof ;
and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Imme-
diately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. State-
ments of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of
the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if
mimeographed, shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of.
all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as- required by Section.
203.85. As further provided in Section 203.46, should any party desire permis-
sion to arpie 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 trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement. of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendation, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, 'and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated.at Washington, D. C., this 17th day of March 1.950.
ROREIrr L. PIPER,
Trial E.cam ivxr.