El Dorado Water Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1223 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

EL DORADO WATER COMPANY, INC. 1223
the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the sites ; ( c) the
picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the sous; and
( d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer.
As to ( a) : During the entire picketing Saperior Tank was engaged in install-
ing vapor recovery systems on some 14 wells situated through the entire Cuyama
Valley Oil Field.
As to ( b) : Under its contract with Richfield , agreed to furnish and install the
recovery systems referred to in (a) next above and finished such installment with-
in the time limit specified in its contract , notwithstanding it had to abandon its
plan to discontinue such installation in Plant 10 area, a plan conceived and
ordered by Richfield as a strategic move to induce Respondents not to establish
the picket line.
As to (c) : The re-ord discloses that Respondents limited the picketing to
places not only reasonably close to the location of the situs, but placed the
picketing lines as close to the sztus as was possible without trespassing upon
private property.
As to (d) : By its picketing, its statements, and by its constant display of
picket signs Respondents made it clear that only Superior Tank was unfair to the
Respondents.
The record discloses that the picketing was at all times peaceful with no evi-
dence or suggestion of threats or violence and not to exceed two pickets on duty
at the same time.
From the foregoing and upon the entire record it appears that the General
Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving any of the material allega-
tions of the complaint . It will be recommended below that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. Richfield Oil Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents : International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship-
builders and Helpers of America, Subordinate Lodge No. 92; United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, A. F. L., Local No. 460; Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties
of California Building and Construction Trades Council , A. F. L.; and Building
and Construction Trades Council of Santa Barbara County, California , A. F. L.,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( b) (1) (A), (4 ) ( A), and ( 4) (B) of the Act , as alleged
in the complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume ]
EL DORADO WATER COMPANY , INC. and LOCAL 381 , INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
15-CA-314. August 21, 19.51
Decision and Order
On March 14, 1951, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
95 NLRB No. 167.
1224 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in-certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) '(1) and (5) of the Act, 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. .
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respond-
ent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record 1 in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner found upon all the facts and in accordance
with prior Board determinations involving this Respondent, that its
operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. We re-
affirm here our finding that the Respondent is engaged in commerce 2
within the meaning of the Act and that in view of its integration
with a multistate corporation, The General Waterworks Corporation,
and its operation as a public utility, it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent.
Order -
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section. 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, EIDorado. Water
Company, Inc., of El Dorado, Arkansas, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall : -
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 381, AFL, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in each of the following units :
(1) All production and maintenance employees at its water dis-
tribution plant at El Dorado, Arkansas, including the janitor, but
excluding office and clerical employees, meter readers, and the super-
visor of the meter service group and other supervisors.
1 Copies of all exhibits introduced at the hearings in Cases Nos. 15-RC-364 and
15-RC-449, and a stipulation that the copies are true and correct copies of the original
exhibits were received at the Board and made a part of the record herein.
2 We find no merit in the Respondent 's contentions that its operations are within the
rule of de minimis. -
EL DORADO WATER COMPANY,,INC: 1225
(2) -All office clerical employees at its El Dorado, Arkansas, water
distributing plant, including the meter readers and cashier, but ex-
cluding all other employees,guards, and'supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering
with the efforts of International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
381, AFL, to negotiate for or represent, the employees in each of the
aforesaid units as exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 381, AFL,-as the exclusive bargaining
agent of all employees in each of the bargaining units described above
in paragraphs 1 (a) (1) and 1 (a) (2), herein, with respect to wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant at El Dorado, Arkansas, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices.to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
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 engage in any acts in any manner interfering with
the efforts Of INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENaINEEIiS,
LOCAL 381, AFL, to negotiate for or represent the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
f In, the event this Order is enforced by. decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words, "A Decision and Order" the words,..
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing.
.1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
each of the bargaining units described below with respect to
wages, rates of . pay, hours of -employment , and other conditions
of employment and if an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement .. The bargaining units are :
1. All production and maintenance employees at our water
distribution plant at El Dorado, Arkansas, including the
janitor, but' excluding office and clerical employees, meter
readers, and the supervisor of the meter service group and
other supervisors.
2. All office clerical employees at our El Dorado , Arkansas,
water distributing plant, including the meter readers and
cashier , but excluding all other employees , guards, . and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
EL DORADO WATER COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------- By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) . ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
:and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed by Local Union No. 381,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued his complaint, dated
.December 29, 1950, and an amendment thereto, dated February 19, 1951, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section
:2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint, the amendment to the complaint, the charges, and
a notice of hearing were duly served-upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint as amended alleged
in substance that the Respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees
within two appropriate bargaining. units, although in separate elections con-
ducted under the supervision of the Board's Regional Director a majority of the
employees in each of the two bargaining units had designated and selected the
Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Respondent in its answer, as amended, admitted that it had been requested
-and had refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentatitve of the employees in each of the two units referred to in the comp'aint.
The Respondent, however, denied that it was engaged in commerce or that its
.operations affected commerce so as to bring it under the jurisdiction of the.
-Board or within the scope of the Act, and, except as otherwise indicated above,
.also denied the other allegations of the complaint imputing to it the commission
,of unfair labor practices
EL DORADO WATER COMPANY, INC. 1227
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on February- 20; 1951, at El Dorado,
.Arkansas, before Arthur, Leff,-the undersigned Trial, Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General: C.ounsel.:and the Respondent were
represented at the hearing by counsel and the Union by a representative. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all `parties. At the opening
of the hearing, the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground
that its operations fell outside the scope of the Act. and the jurisdiction of the
.Board, and, in the alternative, upon the further ground that jurisdiction, if
lodged in the Board, should not be exercised as A. matter of discretion. The
motion was denied. At the close of the hearing, the Respondent renewed its
motion to dismiss the complaint upon the, jurisdictional grounds noted above.
.Ruling on that motion was reserved. The motion is now denied for reason's
indicated-below: The p'arties'did>not avail themselves of the opportunity offered
them to present oral argument at the hearing. On March 6, 1951, the Respondent
filed a brief.
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 THE RESPONDENT
El Dorado Water Company, Inc., is. an Arkansas corporation, having its prin-
cipal place of business in El Dorado, Arkansas, where it is engaged in pumping,
storing, and selling water. The Respondent is a' wholly owned 'subsidiary' of
the General Waterworks Corporation, a Delaware corporation with general
offices in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and a home office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania'.
The General Waterworks Corporation is both a parent and a direct operating
company. As a direct operating company, it operates' the waterworks system of
Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Asa parent company, it owns all the outstanding stock of
some 30 other water companies located in40 States, 13 of, these companies .being.
located in Arkansas and one of them being the Respondent. It also owns,
directly or through its subsidiary, the National Telephone Company, all the
stock of telephone companies operating in some 160 communities, none of which is,
,located in Arkansas. The General Waterworks Company performs various
,services for its subsidiaries, including the Respondent, such as engineering and
accounting services, legal advice, and the handling of all finances.
During the year 1949, the Respondent purchased approximately $10,000 worth
of materials and supplies locally in El Dorado, Arkansas. In addition, the
General Waterworks Corporation purchased for the account of the Respondent
.$73,234.90 worth of materials and supplies, of which amount $65,748.72 was
.for materials and supplies purchased outside the State of Arkansas. During
the same year, the Respondent produced from wells located in El Dorado,
Arkansas, and sold and delivered locally in El Dorado' and its immediate en-
virons, water having a sales value of $190,000, none of which was sold and
delivered outside of the State of Arkansas. Approximately $182,000 of such
,sales or 95.9 percent of its total sales was to small users, mostly domestic users.
However, water valued at $7,856.37, or 4.1 percent of the Respondent's total
sales, was sold to various industrial purchasers in. El Dorado. Among such in-,
? The Respondent ' s directors are all on the board of directors of the General Waterworks
'Corporation. Three of the four corporate officers of the Respondent are also corporate
officers of the General Waterworks Corporation. However, a resident local manager is in
charge of the Respondent's day-to-day operations and the carrying out of the Respondent's
business with its customers.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dustrial purchasers were some that are engaged in interstate commerce -or in
the production of goods for interstate commerce. Thus, sales to industrial
consumers in 1949 included water of the value.of approximately $3,100 sold
to the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, an interstate carrier, for use in
connection with its roundhouse and washing rack operations at El Dorado'
Such sales also included water of the value of approximately $595 to a baking
company, which sells part of its products outside the State of Arkansas, for use
in connection with its manufacturing operations and cooling system. Substan-
tially all other sales to industrial consumers were for local drinking purposes.
The Respondent asserts its operations do not affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and, in the alternative, urges that even if they do, the
Board in the exercise of its discretion should decline to assert jurisdiction,
because, it claims, its operations are essentially local in character. However,
upon substantially the same commerce facts as 'have been set out above, the
Board has already ruled to the contrary in the representation proceedings upon
which the complaint in the instant case is in part founded. In asserting. juris-
diction in the representation proceedings, the Board emphasized that the Re-
spondent formed an integral part of General Waterworks Corporation, a multi-
state enterprise 9 Upon all the facts, and in accordance with prior Board
decisions, I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce and that its opera-
tions affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. .
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 381, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is, a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate-units; representation by the Union of a majority therein
1. The production and maintenance unit
Upon a petition for certification duly filed by the Union in Case No. 15-RC-
364, and after hearing held thereon, the Board, on July 11, 1950, issued a Deci-
sion and Direction of Election in which it directed an election in a unit of the
Respondent's employees consisting of all production and maintenance employees
at the Respondent's water distribution plant at El Dorado, Arkansas, including
the janitor, but excluding office and clerical employees, meter readers, and the
supervisor of the meter service. group and other supervisors-the unit found by
the Board to be appropriate, and which I likewise find to be appropriate, for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act. On August 8, 1950, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
2 The Respondent adduced evidence that the Missouri Pacific Railroad also had its own
sources of water adequate for its needs at Kenova, Arkansas, some 10 miles from
'El Dorado, and at Felsenthal, Arkansas, some 30 miles from El Dorado. But the fact
that the Respondent's product may be secured elsewhere in the event of a stoppage of
the Respondent's operations is immaterial and "may not be considered in determining the
Jurisdiction of the Board." Cudahy Packing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 118 F. 2d 295, 299
(C. A. 10). See also N. L. R. B..v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318, 326.
'In Case No. 15-RC-449, decided February 5, 1951, the Board cited The Borden Com-
pany, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628, and Texas Creamery Cold Storage Company,
91 NLRB 704, and referred also to W. C. King, d/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRH
623 and North Alabama Electric Cooperative, 92 NLRB 1136. In case No. 15-RC-364,
decided July 11, 1950, the Board cited Amere Gas Utilities Company, 73 NLRB 884, and
the cases referred to therein.
'EL 'DORAD:O. WATER COMPAXY, :INC. 1229
supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region. Upon conclusion
bf the election, a tally of 'ballots was furnished to and certified by the observers
for the Union and the Respondent. .The tally showed that of 15 eligible voters
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, all voted in favor of representation by the
Union . No objections to the `election or to its conduct were filed within the
time provided therefor. On August 16, 1950, the Board certified the Union as
the bargaining representative of the employees in the said, appropriate unit..
It. is found that on August 8, 1950, and at all times thereafter,. the Union was,
and now is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act; the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid unit for the. purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
2. The office clerical unit
Upon a petition for certification filed by the Union in Case No. 15-RC-449,
and after a hearing thereon, the Board, on February 5, 1951, issued a Decision
and Direction of Election in which it directed an election in a unit of the
Respondent's employees consisting of all office-clerical employees in the Re-
spondent 's El Dorado, Arkansas, water distributing plant, including the meter
readers and cashier, but excluding all other, employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined . in the Act-the unit found by the Board to be appropriate, and which
1 likewise find-to be appropriate, for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. On February 14, 1951, an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifteenth Region . Upon conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was fur-
nished to and certified by the observers for the Union and the Respondent. The
tally showed that of six ballots cast, five were for representation by the Union,
none was against , and one ballot was challenged. No objections to the election or
to its conduct were filed within the time prescr'bed therefor. On February 16,
1951, the Board certified the Union as the bargaining representative of the
employees in the aforesaid office clerical ,unit. It is found that on February 14,
1951, and at all times thereafter, the Union was, and now is, by virtue of Section
9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive representative of,all employees in the aforesaid
office clerical unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
B. The Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union as the representative of
the employees in each of the appropriate units
On or about September '12, 1950; the Union requested the Respondent to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all of the
employees of the Respondent in the production and maintenance unit found
appropriate above. On or about February 19, 1951, the Union made a similar
request of the Respondent in its capacity as exclusive representative of all
,employees in the office clerical unit found appropriate above. At the times-of
the respective requests, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused,
and has continued to refuse, to meet and bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in each of said units. The
Respondent has based its refusal solely upon its nonacquiescence in the Board's
determination that its operations are within the jurisdiction of the Board and
the scope of the Act, and has declared its purpose, as is its right, to test the
Board's jurisdictional determination in the circuit court of appeals.
On the record as a whole, it is concluded and. found that the Respondent in
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act has refused to bargain with the Union
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR t RELATIONS BOARD
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the production:
and maintenance unit at all times. since September 12,.1950, and as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the office clerical unit at all times since
February 19, 1951. It is further found that the Respondent has thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights.
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III,,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described.
in Section 1, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It
having been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with.
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in appropriate units,
it will be recommended that the Respondent upon request bargain collectively
with the Union.
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. International' Union of Operating Engineers, Local 381, AFL, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and,maintenance. employees at the Respondent's water distri-
bution plant at El Dorado, Arkansas, including the janitor, but excluding office
and clerical employees, meter readers, and the supervrisor of the meter service
group, and other 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. All office clerical employees at the Respondent's El Dorado, Arkansas, water
distributing plant, including the meter readers and cashier, but excluding all
other, employees, guards, 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.
4. The Union was on and after the dates of the respective refusals to bargain
set out in paragraph numbered 5 below, the exclusive representative of all
employees in each of the aforesaid units for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on September 12, 1950, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the unit described in paragraph numbered 2, above, and by refusing on
February 19, 1951, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the unit described
in paragraph. numbered 3, above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
SPUD'S LAUNDRY 1231
in and is engaging- in unfair labor .practices , withtin the-.meaning of Section
,8 (R4_41) 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.]
P. L. MURPHEY, DOING BUSINESS AS SPUDS LAUNDRY and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS - OF AMERICA, LOCAL 946, AFL.. Case No.
37-CA-09. August 21,11951
Decision and Order
On April 18, 1951, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8
(a) (5) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist from
specified conduct and take affirmative action as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.' The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had, not engaged in certain unfair
'labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and conse-
quently recommended dismissal of',those allegations of the complaint
alleging the discriminatory discharge of Thomas Baatz and Lillian
Riga. Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to the findings
in the Intermediate- Report with respect to Baatz and Riga, and a
supporting brief. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, of America, Local 946, AFL,
filed exceptions and a, supporting brief to the findings in the Inter-
mediate Report with, respect to Baatz.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the briefs and exceptions, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
3 No exceptions were filed to these findings and recommendations with respect to the
8 (a) (1) and ( 5) violations . Accordingly we adopt them , without passing upon the Issues
involved.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding , to a three -member panel
[ Members-Houston , Reynolds , and Murdock].
95 NLRB No. 166.