Arlington-Fairfax Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 846 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and present a ready and effective means of destroying self-organization
among its employees. Because of Respondent's unlawful conduct and since there
appears to be an underlying attitude of opposition on the part of Respondent to
the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally," the under-
signed is convinced that if Respondent is not restrained from committing such
conduct, the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
Respondent's conduct in the past, and the policies of the Act Will be defeated.
In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7
of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that Respond-
ent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights _,naranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization Within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ralph
Ruby and Charles Miller thereby discouraging mein bership in the'l'extile \Vorkers
Union of America, CIO, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices Within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Woodrow Bosserman within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
32 See May Department Stores Company, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. (RA DIO STATION
WEAM) and RADIO BROADCAST TECIrNICIANS LocAr. UNION No.
1215, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL.
Case No. 5-CA 336. July 31, 1951
Decision and Order
On April 5, 1951, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
95 NLRB No. 87.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING-COMPANY,, INC. 847
the Respondent had eiigaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
.Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
.filed exceptions to the.Intermediate Report.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error has been committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner,. with the following additions and
modifications : 3
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Robert E. Dalton in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. We agree, and we find further that, in so doing, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
As the Intermediate Report more fully sets forth, Dalton was em-
ployed by the Respondent in January 1949 with the express under-
standing that he would be permitted to supplement his earnings by
working part time at another radio station. At this time, WEAM
was a daytime station. In March 1949, WEAM became a full-
time operation, but Dalton, with the Respondent's knowledge and
acquiescence, continued with his other part-time work.
However, on November 16, 1949, less than 3 weeks after the engi-
neers joined the Union, Respondent posted the statement of policy,
including the prohibition against outside employment, which Dalton
refused .to initial. We are convinced that there is no merit in the
Respondent's contention that Dalton was discharged because of the
insubordination expressed in his memorandum of December 6, 1949,
in which he gave reasons for refusing to initial the policy statement.
In addition to the fact that Dalton had complied with all the pro-
visions of the statement of policy, including the relinquishment of his
other job, we rely especially upon the following considerations to
support our finding that Dalton was discriminatorily discharged :
(a) Aed's testimony that he did not "make an issue" of Dalton's
outside employment "until after the union came in and after the
election was held" when he knew which way Dalton had voted.
i The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as we are of the opinion
that the record before us adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Murdock].
3 The Intermediate Report contains certain inaccurate date references. We note the
following corrections : (a)- Camp was hired on December 30, 1949, and he joined the Union,
on July 17, 1950; and (b) the complaint, as amended, alleged, and the record shows, that
Dalton was discharged on December 15, 1949, and that the election was held on December
9,1949.
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) The Respondent's failure to take any action against Dalton for
more than 3 weeks after posting the statement of policy, despite Dal-
ton's refusal to initial the statement. The Respondent waited 3 days
after receiving Dalton's allegedly insubordinate memorandum of
December 6, 1949, and then, when it knew that Dalton had voted for
the Union, discharged him 4
(c) In August 1950, the Respondent questioned the Union's ma-
jority and refused to bargain. In view of the Respondent's an-
nounced opposition to the Union,, and Respondent's threat to "close
the station" before it would deal with the Union, it is apparent that
the Respondent was determined to rid itself of the Union by the elimi-.
nation of the Union's majority; 5 and when the Respondent felt it had
succeeded in this endeavor, it refused to bargain with the Union on
that ground.° This pattern of antiunionism, dating from before and
continuing after the discharge of Dalton, establishes in our opinion
the dominant purpose of the Respondent to discriminate against the
Union and union adherents as of the date of Dalton's discharge. We
find,. accordingly,- that the discharge of Dalton, who at the time was
known to be a union adherent, was effected in accordance with the
Respondent's demonstrated union animus ,7 and not as the result of
any real or fancied misconduct on the part of Dalton.
2. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act. We agree, and we find further that, in so doing, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, we find
that the refusal to bargain occurred on March 9, 1950, and not, as the
Trial Examiner found, on December 10, 1949.
As the Intermediate Report sets forth; the Union voluntarily post-
poned the commencement of the bargaining conferences until March
9, 1950. It was at this time that Stanley, after examining the pro-
posed contract, told the union representatives how bitterly opposed
Thorns was to unionization and that Thoms would close up the sta-
tion before he would deal with unions. As is detailed in the Inter-
mediate Report, it is apparent that the Respondent made no attempt
to bargain with the Union after March 9, 1950, and we think it equally
apparent that the Respondent made clear on that date its intention
not to do so. We find, therefore, that on March 9, 1950, and at all
times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with
4 We do not deem it necessary to speculate , as did the Trial Examiner , as to what the
Respondent might have done had the Union lost the election.
" The Respondent had already terminated the services of Costa and Dansereau before
discharging Dalton.
O As is set forth in the Intermediate Report, the new engineers , unknown to.the
Respondent , had also joined the Union. . - '4 ,
7 Eastman Cotton Mills, 90 NLRB 31; The L. B. Hosiery Company Incorporated, 88
NLRB 1000 ; Magnolia Cotton Mill Co., Inc., 79 NLRB 9.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 849
the' Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit,, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record is 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, Arlington-Fair-
fax Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Radio' Station WEAM), its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Radio Broadcast Technicians
Local No. 1215,' International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL, or in -any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Refusing, upon request, to bargain collectively with Radio
Broadcast Technicians Local No. 1215, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all full-
time and part-time broadcast technicians and engineers employed by
the Respondent, excluding all other employees, announcers, office and
clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
'(c) Threatening to close its radio station, and interrogating its
employees concerning their union membership, activities, or sym-
pathy.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Radio Broadcast Technicians
Local Union No. 1215, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Robert E. Dalton immediate and full -reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole,
in the' manner set forth in that- section of the Intermediate Report
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entitled "The Remedy," .for any loss of pay 'he may have suffered as
a ,result of the Respondent's discrimination against him.
(b) Upon request, make. available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze, the amount of back pay and the right
of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
.. (c) Upon request, bargain collectively With Radio Broadcast Tech-
nicians Local Union No: 1215, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all the employ-
ees in the above-described unit, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(d) Post at its radio station in Arlington, Virginia, copies of.the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth 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 con-
spicuous places, including. all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 threaten employees that we will close our ' radio
station or take other economic reprisals against our employees
if they join RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS LOCAL UNION No.
1215, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner con-
cerning their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or.
coerce our. employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist RADIO BROAD-
8 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order," the words, "A Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 851
CAST TECHNICIANS LOCAL UNION No. 1215, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such.. activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Robert E. Dalton reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to senior-
ity or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the,
discrimination.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, wages, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is
All full-time and part-time broadcast technicians and engi-
neers, excluding all other employees, announcers, office and
clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members 'of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will. not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or. any term
or condition of employment against any. employees because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY,.INC•
Employer.
By --------------=-------------------------------
(Representative ) . ( Title )
Dated -------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on November 27, 1950, by International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board l by the Regional Director
' The General Counsel and his representative are herein referred to as the General
Counsel ; and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
961974-52-vol. 95-55
852 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) on November 27, 1950, issued a
complaint against Arlington-Fairfax Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Radio Station
WEAM), herein called the Respondent or WEAM, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5). and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, the charge and the first amended charge upon which the
complaint was based together with notice of hearing thereon were duly served.
upon the Respondent and the Union.2
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent: (1) On and after December 8, 1949, urged, persuaded, and
warned its employees by threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit to
refrain from assisting, becoming or remaining members of the Union, or en-
gaging or continuing to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; interrogated its employee@
and applicants for employment concerning their membership in the Union or any
;other labor organization and activities on behalf of the Union or any other
labor organization; (2) on or about December 15, 1949, discriminatorily dis=
charged and thereafter refused reinstatement to Robert E. Dalton because of his
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and in order to destroy the
Union's majority; and (3) on or about and after December 10, 1949, refused
and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit.
In its answer filed on December 6, 1950, the Respondent admitted certain
allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices, and averred that its refusal to bargain with the Union was justified.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Washington, District of Columbia,
from January 15, 1951, to January 17, 1951, inclusive, before W. Gerard Ryan,
the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union participated in the hear-
ing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At
the conclusion of the testimony, I granted the General Counsel's motion to amend
the complaint and other formal documents to conform with the proof with
respect to immaterial matters relating to names, dates, and places. The parties
were afforded an opportunity for oral argument and advised of their rights
to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Oral argument
was waived by all parties and no briefs, proposed findings, or, conclusions have
been filed.
On the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation incorporated in 1947 under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal office and place of business in
Arlington County, Virginia, where it operates a radio station known as WEAM.'
2 The original charge was filed on June 8, 1950, mailed on June 8, and received by the
"Respondent on June 9, 1950.
8In making the findings herein I have considered and weighed the entire evidence.
Such testimony or other evidence as is In conflict with the findings herein is not credited.
' The complaint alleged the Respondent is a Delaware corporation. At the hearing, it
was stipulated that it is a Virginia corporation.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, .INC. 853
The Respondent is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to
operate a 5,000-watt station: under class 3 license. During 1949 and 1950, the
Respondent received from advertisers approximately' $72,000 per year of, which
approximately 30 percent comes from advertising outside the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including national and regional advertising. The Respondent concedes,
and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Radio Broadcast Technicians Local Union No. 1215, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Respondent.
III. THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
A. Introduction and background
Four employees, Robert .11. Dalton, John J. Britto, Edward J. Dansereau, and
Francis J. Costa, comprised the entire staff of engineers and technicians who
were in the employ of the Respondent on October 30, 1949, when they met with
union representatives, signed application cards for membership, and designated
the Union to be their bargaining representative for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. On November 1, between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon, Lawson
Wimberly and Lawrence J. Holt, union representatives, met with Howard
Stanley, the Respondent' s manager in charge of the radio station, and informed:
him that the Union represented a majority of the engineers, inquired whether
the Respondent would recognize it as such : and, if so, requested that a date
be named for a conference.' After the meeting, which lasted approximately
10 or 15 minutes, Stanley decided to call the four employees to a meeting that
same night at 11 p. m. According to Stanley, his purpose in calling the meeting
was that upon learning the employees had organized, he was disillusioned, his
feelings and pride were hurt, and he wanted to see where possibly he had failed
as a manager ; that he was aware in "cases of this nature" a man will sometimes
sign a card for and express an intention to join a union and thereafter think
otherwise when he votes in a secret election. Stanley continued that he wanted
to discuss with the employees their rights under the law ; but, mostly, it was
to do some "soul-searching" to see what the facts were so as to be in a better
position to talk further with the union representatives if they pursued the
matter, and also to be able to, advise Thorns the next day what had transpired
with a full, background on the situation. Aed telephoned to Britto, who had
entered the hospital on October 31, and asked him to-attend the meeting that
evening. Britto refused to leave the hospital. Aed also telephoned to Dansereau
at his home a few minutes after 6 p. m., told him that he had learned about the
Union, inquired why he had not been forewarned, asked the identity of the one
who had "started the ball rolling" on the employee& organizing , and told Danser-
eau that Stanley wanted to have a meeting ,that evening with the technicians.
5 Consideration of evidence dating back more than 6 months before the filing and service
of the original charge is necessary for background purposes to explain or. clarify events
occurring within the 6-month period. No finding , however, is made that any act or
conduct occurring more than 6 months before the filing and service of the charge is, in
itself, an unfair labor practice in view of the proviso to Section 10 (b) of the Act.
(Axelson Manufacturing Company, 88 NLRB 761.)
6The Respondent' s supervisors within the meaning of the Act at the times material
herein were : Harold H. Thorns, president; Howard Stanley, general manager ; Sammie
Aed, chief engineer ; and Matthew Warren, program director. .
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Efforts to reach Dalton earlier in the evening by Aed and Stanley failed and
when he finally was reached by telephone at midnight, he refused to attend,
explaining to.Aed that he had been working long hours that day and suggested
that Stanley call a meeting at a more respectable hour. While Dalton was
still on the line, Stanley took the telephone from Aed and talked to him about
coming to the meeting and, when Dalton still refused, ended the conversation
by inquiring if Dalton realized that four men's jobs were at stake.' Dansereau
was the only one of the four employees who attended the meeting at which were
also present, in addition to Stanley, two other supervisors, Aed and Warren e
According to the accredited testimony of, Dansereau, Stanley opened the confer-
,ence by asking Aed if he had not told Dansereau "about unions," to which Aed
Teplled in the affirmative. Then Warren inquired from Dansereau who the
ainion-shop steward was but Dansereau informed him no one had been elected.
;Stanley, whom Dansereau described to be in an angry mood, declared that,it was
not fair to stab an employer in the back nor to organize in a place where unions
were not wanted. According to Aed's testimony, Stanley asked Dansereau what
his complaint was, why the employees had gone to the Union, and further
stated that Stanley said he possibly could have straightened things out if they
had come to him. Dansereau testified further that Stanley produced charts
^of the National Association of Broadcasters, discussed wage rates for the Dis-
trict of Columbia and Virginia, the station classification for WEAM, and said
that the Respondent could not afford to increase salaries. At that point,
Dansereau observed that Stanley should give those facts to the Union and that
something might be worked out. Finally, Dansereau stated there was no point
to Stanley in-arguing with him alone, told him he would leave, and thereupon
left. At the conclusion of the meeting with Dansereau, Aed testified that Stanley
then asked him if they could get along with Dansereau working on a part-time
basis and Aed agreed that could be done.
On the following day, November 2, while Dansereau was working at the sta-.
tion transmitter, Aed asked him who had started the ball rolling on union organ-
ization, but he refused to answer. Then Aed delivered to Dansereau a memo-
randum advising him that "as . an economic measure" effective November 8,
Dansereau was reduced from full-time to part-time work of 281/2 hours per
week. On November 8 the employment of Costa, who had been working on a
part-time basis since September 23, 1949, was terminated .0 Dansereau worked
on a part-time basis from November 8 until November 17, when he was notified
° During the evening, Wimberly upon hearing that Stanley intended to call a meeting,
had telephoned to Stanley and asked permission to attend on behalf of the Union. Stanley
replied that he preferred that Wimberly.not attend, and offered to call off the meeting.
Wimberly stated he had no objection to the meeting being held but advised Stanley not
to engage in any threats or promises during the meeting.
8 Stanley denied that any meeting had in fact taken place on November 1 ; that he was
disillusioned at the lack of cooperation he had received, felt that he should not address one
man when he wanted to talk to the entire group, and therefore preferred not to hold a
meeting. He testified that while Dansereau was there with Aed, Warren, and himself, .
they "merely exchanged the pleasantries of the day." Stanley, however, testified that at
that time he did talk with Dansereau, thanked him for attending, discussed several things
that Dansereau was unhappy with, inquired the amount of salary Dansereau was receiving,
and what. his object was in life. Stanley denied that the general gist of what he had
intended to say if the four employees had been present was stated to Dansereau.
° Aed testified that Costa had been hired on a temporary basis only as "vacation relief"
and to help out while Britto was in the hospital. Noting that Costa's employment
began on September 23, that Britto was in the hospital from October 31 to November 15,
inclusive, that there is no evidence that anyone took a vacation after Costa was hired,
together with the undisputed testimony that Aed told Dansereau a week after Costa was
hired,that Costa would become a full-time operator, such testimony is not credited.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. '855
that "effective immediately" it was necessary to dispense with his services.
The reason given to him was that he was being replaced by an engineer from
another radio station who had more seniority" On November 8, the-Respond-
ent replied by letter to the Union that it did not recognize the Union as bargain-
ing representative and requested that adequate proof be furnished that the
Union did represent the majority. Thereafter, on December 5, the parties en-
tered into an agreement duly approved by the Regional Director for a consent
election which was held on December 9'' Owing to the termination of the
employment of Costa and Dansereau, Dalton and Britto were the only two
eligible employees to vote in the election, which was unanimously won by the
Union. On December 19, the Union was formally certified by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region as the exclusive representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.
Aed and Britto testified that Costa's termination resulted in more work for
the others to perform. Britto testified that after Dansereau's discharge, he,
with Dalton and Aed, performed Dansereau's work on the basis of some over
time. Britto, knowing that Costa, Dansereau, and Dalton had been discharged,
thought that he would be the next one to go, so he voluntarily quit on January
15, 1950. He stayed around Washington, D. C., for approximately 2 weeks
and then obtained a position at the Naval Research Laboratory.
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion
1. Interrogation
Following the discriminatory discharge of Dalton on or. about December
15, 1949, as hereinafter set forth, the Respondent hired Engineer William H.
Camp on December 30, 1949, after an interview with Aed and Stanley. Aed
interviewed him first and, in addition to the usual questions concerning his
education and experience, was told by Aed that the Company was against the
Union at that time. Then Aed introduced him to Stanley who also stated in
effect that the Company was against the Union and added that Camp would
make out all right there, if he worked against the Union" During his em
10 Aed testified that the engineer referred to was John Allen who never did report for
work ; that William H. Camp, hired on January 30, 1950, actually replaced Dansereau,
and, although Camp worked full time, compared to Dansereau's part-time employment from
November 8-17, that was only a coincidence.
n Prior to the election, Aed admitted that he inquired from Britto how he would vote
in the election. Also prior to the election, Stanley had met with Dalton and Britto,
informed them that Thorns did not care to have union representation in his radio station;
and discussed wages and working conditions with them. On the day of the election,
according to Britto, Stanley telephoned to him at his home and stated "Don't forget what
we did for you while you were in the hospital." Stanley's version of that conversation,
which he stated was on the day before the election, was that he told Britto it was his
right to vote as he saw fit but it was also Stanley's right to advise him that Stanley would
prefer to have Britto vote against the "NLRB," concluding, "As far as I am concerned,
Johnnie, it is up to you, but remember I was very nice to you when you were in the
hospital." (Britto was paid a week's salary while he was in the hospital and his job was
kept open for him.)
"While, under Section 8 (c) of the Act, an employer is permitted the expression of
"any views, argument or opinion" so long as such expressions are not accompanied by
any "threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit" thereby, permitting, in the absence
of coercive content in the statutory sense , as privileged, statements revealing an antiunion
attitude and hostility to employee organization on the part of the employer (H- & H
Manufacturing Company, Inc., 87 NLRB 1373; Meier of Frank Co., Inc., 89 NLRB 1016),
nevertheless, Stanley's statement to Camp that he would make out all right if he worked
against the Union, overstepped the bounds of privilege since it clearly was a threat or
promise of benefit held out to him and therefore constituted interference , restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of the Act.
856 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployment, Camp, unknown to the Respondent, -Joined the Union on July 17,
1949, together with the other engineers then employed, Robert Greenwell and
Richard Phister.. During the course of his employment there, the Respondent
admits that it questioned not only damp, but all the other engineers, namely,
Phister, Greenwell, Allen, Gross, Brewington, and Atkinson, individually, con-
cerning their membership in the Union, at various times during their employ-
ment 18 It has long been established that interrogation, of employees by an
employer concerning union membership, activities, or sympathies, is per se vio-
lative of the Act. In the Standard-Coosa-Thatcher case 14 the Board reviewed
the nature and rationale of its long-established policy of holding the questioning
of employees about their organizational activities to be a violation of the
statute, as an invasion of employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act. I there-
fore find that by Stanley's statement to Camp that he would make out all right
if he worked against the Union and the admitted questioning of its employees
within the 6-month period prior to the filing and service of the charge and there-
after, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees,
thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. Threat to close the station
On March 9, 1950, Wimberly testified that Stanley stated to him at the end of
the 2-hour conference regarding the proposed agreement "You don't know how
bitter this fellow (Thorns) is about unions. He will just close this place up
before he will deal with unions." Stanley's version of his conversation was
that after reading the proposed agreement he told Wimberly and Holt, the union
representatives, that if he were Thorns, rather than sign an agreement of that
nature he would rather close the station, and emphasized at the hearing that
was still Stanley's position. On the accredited testimony of Wimberly (cor-
roborated by Holt) I find that the Respondent threatened to close its radio
station before it would. "deal with unions." Such a threat, uttered to the em-
ployees' representatives, was interference, restraint, and coercion within the
meaning of the Act and the Respondent thereby, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act16
C. The discriminatory discharge of Robert E. Dalton
The complaint alleged that the Respondent discharged Robert E. Dalton on
or about December 15, 1950, and at all times since has failed to reinstate him
because he joined, assisted, or voted for the Union in the election of December 9,
1950, or engaged in concerted or union activities with other employees of the
Respondent for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection and to destroy the' Union's majority. The answer denied that he had
been discharged for the reasons alleged in the complaint and at the hearing
the Respondent -introduced evidence that his discharge was for cause.
Dalton was employed by the Respondent from approximately the middle of
January 1949 to on or about December 15, 1950. At the time he was hired, he
came to an agreement with Aed whereby he reduced his salary demand and
accepted a lower salary with the privilege of working part time at another radio .
is The engineers named were all hired after Camp, except Phister, who was hired on
December 20, 1949.
14 85 NLRB 1358.
15 See Premier Worsted Mills, 85 NLRB 985; Dixie Culvert Mfg. Co., Inc., 87 NLRB
554 ; International Shoe Co., 87 NLRB 589; Florida Telephone Corp., 88 NLRB 1429;
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 857
station. To permit that arrangement,. Aed assigned,him to the hours on the
morning watch from 5 a. in. to 1 p. in. Aed acceded to that, plan because Dalton
was an engineer of 10 years' experience and Aed - needed particularly an ex-
-perienced engineer because WEAM was'then a station operating'only in the day-
time. It has been shown supra that Dalton joined,,the, Union on October 30,
1949. Following Stanley's statement to him that four men's jobs were at
stake (which included Dalton's job) when he refused. to attend the meeting called
by Stanley for November 1, :Dalton was relieved; at the station transmitter the
day following at 12: 30 p. m., by Aed, who then iemarked to him that he under-
stood the four engineers would not join the Union owing to the attitude of the
Respondent against such action.
On November 16, Dalton with the other engineers was asked to initial a notice
posted by Aed on the bulletin board containing several paragraphs on wages
and working conditions. Dalton objected to signing the memorandum because
of the following paragraphs therein :
No operator will bring to the transmitter any radio to be serviced while
on duty. You will have enough to do without the extra curricular activities.
In some cases radios will have to be serviced here, these exceptions will be
authorized by me, Mr. Stanley, or Mr. Warren or are station property.
Your job will be primarily with WEAM and any schedule made by me will
be followed. If it interferes with another job you will have to make your
choice. It is the managements thought that a man cannot serve two masters
equally well. It is also difficult to maintain matters on a confidential basis.
Engineers now working for WEAM and who are also employed by other
stations even on a part-time basis, must make a definite decision to work
for WEAM exclusively or not at all.
Dalton explained in his testimony, that he objected to what he considered
insinuations that he was in the habit of repairing radios while on duty at the
transmitter and divulging confidential matters connected with the operation
of WEAM. On December 6, by written memorandum to Aed, Dalton agreed
to sign the memorandum requested provided the "studied implications" con-
tained in the paragraphs above were deleted. The Respondent made no comment
on Dalton's memorandum until December 9 when he was handed the memo-
randum in evidence from Stanley dated December 15 which read :
This is not a pleasant task, Bob, but I believe that for the good of WEAM
we must dispense with your services immediately.
In the past, as you know, I have been tolerant of your criticisms of the
ownership and your uncomplimentary remarks against your chief. Al-
though this action was to a large degree disloyal, I accepted your gripes
as typical of so many unhappy people in radio.
However, your note to Sam Aed of December 6th and your refusal to
cooperate with him, frankly, Bob, was the final straw. In an outfit as
small as we are, such insubordination and. disrespect for authority is un-
healthy. Both Sam and I will be happy to recommend your engineering
work as most satisfactory.
The record shows that after WEAM became a full-time station on March
IT, 1949, the subject of Dalton's part-time work elsewhere was never referred
to. until the Respondent's memorandum of November 16 was issued forbidding
such part-time work. Aed testified that when WEAM became a full-time radio
station, the situation that permitted Dalton to work elsewhere while it was
8e58- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a daytime station had ceased to prevail and the arrangement with Dalton should
have been rescinded. Nevertheless, Aed admitted that WEAM had not been
affected too much by the fact that Dalton continued. to work elsewhere on a
part-time basis, and it was not until it was known that he had voted in fa e â–ºr-
of the Union that the matter became an issue. Aed testified further that he
gave the memorandum of discharge to Dalton on December 9, to be effective
December 15, thereby giving him 6 days in which to change his mind and when
he had not initialed the memorandum of the Respondent dated November 16,
discharged him for insubordination. , I find there is no merit in the Respondent's
defense. The acts of the Respondent subsequent to November 1 bespeak an
intention to rid itself of Dalton and others as soon as an opportunity, real
or fancied; presented itself. I am convinced that no issue was made of Dalton's
memorandum of December 6 until the Respondent had knowledge that he had
voted for the Union on December 9. Then, on that very date, he was given
his notice of discharge, to be effective December 15. I am confident after con=
sideration of all the evidence in the record that such notice of discharge would
not have issued had the Union lost the election. Upon all the evidence I con-
clude that because of Dalton's known union membership and the fact that 'tie'
voted for the Union in the election, the reasons assigned by the Respondent were
a pretext for discharging him on or about December 15, 1949, and therefore find
that in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent by discharging
Dalton and refusing him reinstatement discriminated with respect to his hire
and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging ,membership in the Union.
D. The Respondent's refusal to bargain
The complaint alleged that the Respondent on and after December 10, 1949,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of all the employees of the Respondent' in an appropriate unit. The answer
admitted the allegations of the complaint but averred that its refusal to bargain
was justified.
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged, the Respondent admitted, and I find that all full-time
and part-time broadcast technicians and engineers of the Respondent, excluding
all other employees, announcers, office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. The majority
It has been shown, supra, that on October 30, 1949, all four employees in the
unit signed union application cards and designated the Union to be their bar-
gaining representative, and that on November 1, Lawson Wimberly and Lawrence
J. Holt met with Howard Stanley, who was the- manager in charge of the
Respondent's Radio Station WEAM, and informed him that the Union represented
a majority of the engineers, inquired whether the Respondent would recognize
it as such ; and, if so, requested that a date be named for a conference. There-
after, on November 8, the Respondent replied by letter to the Union that it did
not recognize the Union as bargaining representative and requested that adequate
proof be furnished that the Union did represent the majority. On December 5,
the pasties entered into an agreement for a consent election by the Board which
.was held on December 9 and which the Union won. On December 19, 1949, the
Union was formally certified as the, exclusive representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining in the unit.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 859
On the day following the consent election, December 10, Stanley wrote a letter
to the Union, the pertinent parts of which are :
Inasmuch as December is our busiest month and inasmuch as I personally
"Am responsible for almost 85% of the revenue that comes in to WEAM
through my efforts as sales manager, I hope that too much of my daytime
will-not be monopolized in endless union negotiations.
Mrs. Stanley and I have postponed our vacation twice because of pressure
of. business. We intend taking from December 23rd to December 28th off
to visit her folks in Arkansas. If messrs . Dalton and Britto can withhold
their demands until such a time, I shall deem it a personal favor. However,
if your powwow with them makes it imperative I remain in the city, I shall
be glad to do so.
On December 14, the Union replied by letter acceding to the Respondent's
request in the above letter, stating that the Union would withhold any presen-
ta ion of proposed` contract until after January 1, 1950. The Union, following
announcements "about the middle of January from the Respondent's radio station
that it would become affiliated with the Mutual Broadcasting System on or about
February 21, 1950, decided to wait a few days to let the Respondent get on the
Mutual network and then submit its proposed agreement. Nothing was done by
the Union for 3 or 4 weeks. Following an unsuccessful attempt to reach Stanley,
s conference was scheduled and held on March 9, at which time -Stanley was given
a draft of the proposed agreement by the Union. For more than 2 hours the
proposed agreement was discussed, paragraph by paragraph, including a dis-
cussion on wages which took about 30 minutes. At the end of the conference,
Stanley said that Thorns would never sign the proposed agreement, stating "You
don't know' how bitter this fellow is about unions. He will just close this place
up before he will deal with unions." Learning that Thoms was then in Wash-
ington, D . C., the Union requested a meeting with him but Stanley said that
could not be arranged in view of a dinner engagement that Thorns had for that
evening, but that.Thoms would be in Washington the next day. Wimberly then
requested Stanley to have Thoms telephone to him the next day but he did not
telephone. Hearing nothing further, on March 16; 1950, Wimberly wrote to
Stanley summarizing for the most part the events up to that time and requesting
a reply from Stanley as to what the status of the situation then was. Following
that letter, to which there never has been a reply from the Respondent, the
Union attempted several times withous success to telephone to Stanley and then
on June 8 filed its charge of unfair labor practices. On June 29, Wimberly wrote
to Stanley and to Thorns making a further request for a meeting to negotiate
an agreement. On July 8, the Respondent replied by letter from Thorns (in
which nothing was said about negotiations) referring the Union to the Respond-
ent's attorney, Norman E. Jorgensen, if the Union cared to discuss the charges
of unfair labor practices which had been filed. On August 14, the Union wrote
to Jorgensen requesting that a bargaining conference be arranged. Jorgensen
replied by letter dated August 23, stating that despite the results of the Board
election it was the Respondent's position at that time that the Union had lost
its majority "and therefore is not in a position to negotiate for any employees."
At no time has the Respondent ever submitted any counterproposals to the pro-
posals submitted by the Union on March 9.
The Respondent's Defense for Refusing to Bargain
As already .set forth, following' notice on November 1 that the Union repre-
sented the four employees in the unit, the Respondent on November 8 discharged
Costa, reduced Dansereau to part-time work and then discharged him on Novem-
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR= RELATIONS BOARD
ber 17. The unit then consisted of Dalton and Britto. Dalton as found above
was discriminatorily discharged on or about December 15, 1949, and Britto re-
signed on January 15, 1950. Richard Phister was hired on December 27, William
H. Camp was hired on December 30, and Robert Greenwell =was, hired sometime
in January 1950, all of whom were nonunion. However, unknown to the Re-
spondent, Phister, Camp, and Greenwell signed union cards on July 17, 1950:
Camp and Phister resigned on September 8 and October 7, respectively. The
record does not show Greenwell's last day of employment but at the time of
the hearing, Camp, Phister, and Greenwell had been replaced by four nonunion
engineers.
Thus on August 23, 1949, when the Union was advised that it had lost its
majority in the unit, there actually was a majority in the unit at that time.
Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that the unit ever
repudiated the Union as its representative..
s
Conclusions •
It having been established that the Union was certified on December 19, 1949,.,
following a Board election, as the representative of all the Respondent's 'em-,
ployees in an appropriate unit and had requested the ,Respondent to enter into.
bargaining negotiations, there remains for determination the sole question..
whether the Respondent was justified in its refusal to bargain with the Union
on the ground that the Union no longer represented a majority in the unit. It.
has long been the policy of the Board 16 that-its certification of a bargaining rep-
resentative generally is an absolute bar to a new determination of representatives-
for 1 year, in order to enable a newly certified union to establish bargaining rela-
tions free from rival claims or decertification proceedings within 1 year., It has•
been held that if litigation over bargaining rights or unfair labor practices inter-
venes and prevents the certified agent from enjoying such a year immediately
after certification, it is entitled to a year after termination of the litigation"
In Dorsey Trailers, Inc.,` a certification outstanding for 18. months was given:
continuing effect in the absence of a showing that a majority of the employees had.,
repudiated the certified representative.19 Accordingly, I find no merit in the Re-,
spondent's defense ; and I further find, upon the entire evidence, that on December
10, 1949, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit in violation of the provisions of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
1e Reinforced * by Section 9 ( c) (3) of the Act, which prohibits the holding of a repre-
sentation election less than 12 months after a prior valid representation election has been..
held in the same unit.
17 Semi-Steel Casting Co ., 88 NLRB 201 ; Potash Company of America, 88 NLRB 234.
1s 80 NLRB 478.
19 In other cases, even a showing of repudiation has been held not to destroy the pre-
sumptive continuing effect of a certification after the lapse of a year, if the defection was
found to have been induced by the employer 's unfair labor practices . See, e. g., Highland'
Park Manufacturing Company, 84 NLRB 744 ; and Lancaster Foundry Corporation, •82'
NLRB 1255.
ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 861
V. THE REMEDY
Havingfound.that the. Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has ;engaged in, Interrogation of employees
concerning the Union, has threatened to close its radio station, and has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in derogation of their rights
secured by Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated against Robert E. Dalton
in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, I shall recommend that the
Respondent offer him immediate. and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and that the Respondent also make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money covering his loss. of pay ; such loss of pay to
be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof
during the period from the Respondent's discriminatory ;action to the date of
the offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters,"
shall begin with the first day of January, April, July; and October. Loss of pay
shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which he normally
would have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his net earning,20 if any,
in other employment, during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter
shall haie'no effect upon the back-pay liability for any-other quarter. I shall
further, recommend that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the
National Labor Relations Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this
recommended order 21
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, I shall rec-
ommend that, upon request, the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union,
and if an agreement is reached incorporate it in a signed contract.
The scope of the Respondent's illegal conduct as found above discloses a pur-
pose to defeat self-organization among its employees. Because of the Respond-
ent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, I am convinced that the un-
fair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor
practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future Is to be
anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes
of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the
threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantee of
Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from
in any manner infringing on-the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
20 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as transportation , room, and
board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere
than for the Respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful dis-
crimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where. See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L..R. B., 311 ;U. S. 7.
21 See F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon . the entire record in the case, I
make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Radio Broadcast Technicians Local Union No. 1215 , International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All full-time and part-time broadcast technicians and engineers of the Re-
spondent , excluding all other employees , announcers , office and clerical employees,
watchmen , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
3. Radio Broadcast Technicians Local Union No. 1215, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., was on October 30, 1949, and at all times
thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the
above appropriate unit, within the meaning of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert
E. Dalton , thereby discouraging membership in the Radio Broadcast Techni-
cians Local Union No. 1215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
A. F. L., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
6. By refusing on December 10, 1949, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with Radio Broadcast Technicians Local Union No. 1215, Interna-
:ional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has
-engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
7: The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
PORTAGE-MANLEY SAND COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS. Case No. 18-CA42,. July 31, 1951
Decision and Order
On April 23, 1951, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and. recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the.
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief.
95 NLRB No. 91.