Hallam & Boggs Truck and Implement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1443 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HALLAM & BOGGS TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT CO. 1443
ployees generally," the undersigned is convinced that if the Respondent is not
restrained from committing such conduct, the danger of their commission in
the future is to be anticipated from the 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 under-
signed will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. El Paso Consolidated Industrial Union, Local 896 of International Union
of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) 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, the Respondent has engaged
in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
1 5 See May Department Stores Company, etc v. N L. R. B, 326 U. S 376.
HALLAM & Boos TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 9, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 30-CA-175. August 29,1951
Decision and Order
On June 13, 1951, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller 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. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board i has considered the stipulation entered into by the par-
ties, the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case,2 and hereby adopts the findings, con-
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston,
Reynolds, and Styles].
2 The parties waived a hearing, and stipulated that the record should consist of the
formal papers in this proceeding, the dealer sales-and-service agreements between the
Respondent and International Harvester Company, and the record in Hallam cC Rogyv
Truck and Implement Company, 92 NLRB 1339.
95 NLRB No 131.
961974--5 2-vol 95---92
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the follow-
.ing addition.
The principal issue involved in this case-whether the. Board has,
and should exercise, jurisdiction over the Respondent's operations-
was decided by the Board in the earlier representation-proceeding (92
NLRB 1339). There the Board . asserted jurisdiction on the ground
that, by virtue of the Respondent's sales-and-service agreements with
International Harvester Company, the Respondent operates as an
integral part of a multistate enterprise. Nothing alluded to by the
Respondent in its exceptions here persuades us that our earlier deci-
sion was in error. The Respondent's principal contention is that the
arrangement with International Harvester Company does not provide
for any exclusive territory for sales by the Respondent. But this
factor is not determinative of whether the principle enunciated in the
Baxter Brothers case 3 is applicable. -Of much greater significance is
the fact that by virtue of the agreements with International Harvester,
the latter maintains a substantial degree of control over the manner in
which the Respondent operates its business in the distribution of In-
ternational Harvester products.4
We, therefore, reaffirm our earlier decision and find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the Respondent is engaged in operations which
affect commerce, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction in this case.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to.Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Hallam & Boggs Truck &
Implement Company, Grand Junction, Colorado, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
a. Refusing to bargain collectively with the International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 9, AFL, as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all of the Respondent's shop employees; including the
mechanics, mechanic trainees, and set-up men, but excluding office and
clerical employees, partsmen, janitor, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
8 91 NLRB 1480. -
4 Kelly A . Scott, 93 NLRB 654. See also Holm Tractor t Equipment Company,
93 NLRB 222. We find without merit the Respondent 's contention that the record fails
to establish any control by International Harvester . The dealer -sales-and -service agree-
ments, which are in the record by stipulation of the parties , show on their face control
.by International Harvester of such elements as price, inventories , the sufficiency of
sales -and-service facilities , financial records, insurance "overage , and advertising.
HALLAM & BOGGS TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT CO. 1445
b.'In any other manner interfering with the efforts of the above-
named union to bargain collectively with the Respondent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No. 9, AFL, as exclusive representative
of all of the employees in the above-described unit, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
b. Post in its establishment at Grand Junction, Colorado, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth
Region, shall, after being 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 Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
c. Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
. Appendix
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 bargain collectively upon request with the INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 9, A. F. OF L.,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargain-
Ping unit described herein, with respect to their rates of pay, wages,
-hours of work, and other terms or conditions of employment, and
-if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All of our shop employees, including the mechanics, mechanic
trainee, and-set-up men, but exclusive of office and clerical
employees, partsmen, janitor, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
' In the event this Order Is enforced by 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."
1443 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WML NOT-in-Any manner interfere with the efforts of the:
above-named Union to bargain collectively with us.
HALLAM & BOGGS TRUCK & IMPLEMENT COMPANY,
'Employer_*
By -----------------------------=-----------------------
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 a charge and first amended charge duly. filed by the International Union,
of Operating Engineers, Local No. 9, A. F. Of L., designated herein as the Union,.
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' in the name of the-
Board, caused the Regional Director of its Seventeenth Region,- at Kansas City,
Missouri, to issue a complaint dated April 30, 1951; against the Hallam & Boggs.
Truck and Implement Company, a co-partnership, doing business in Grand,
Junction, Colorado, herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleged that
the Respondent engaged and has continued to engage 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, 49 Stat. 449, as amended and;
reenacted in the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, desig-
nated herein as the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,.
that : (1) The Respondent, on or about March 14, 1951, and at all times thereafter,
failed and refused,. and continues to fail and refuse, to bargain collectively with!
the Union as the duly designated and certified representative of all its employees;
in a unit appropriate. for the purposes of collective bargaining; (2) the Re-
spondent, on or about April 2, 1951, unilaterally changed the work schedules,.
and. the terms and conditions of work, applicable to. the employees in tile'
aforesaid unit; and (3) the Respondent's course of, conduct, as described, in-
volved unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (a) (1) and (5),
of the Act.
In`due course, on May 7, 1951, the Respondent filed an answer, and a motion,
to dismiss the complaint. It. admitted, in the answer, certain jurisdictional
allegations of the complaint, and conceded the status of the Union As a labor
organization ; it also admitted that the unit described in the complaint as appro-
priate for the purposes of a collective bargain would be appropriate for that
purpose if the Respondent were subject to the Act. It denied the Board' s juris-.
diction, however, in connection with an earlier representation proceeding
cited in the complaint as the basis. for the General Counsel's present unit con
-tention-and alleged that the Board's decision in that case, and all actions
undertaken in connection with it and pursuant to it, were void' and of no' force
and effect. Accordingly, while conceding that certain action was taken by the
Regional Director and the Board pursuant to a Board decision in the earlier
representation case involving it, and conceding further its failure and refusal
i The General Counsel and his representative in this; case are designated' herein as
the General Counsel, and the National tabor- Relations Board -as the Board.
HALLAM & 'BOGGS TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT CO. 1447
to bargain collectively with the Union thereafter , and its subsequent unilateral
-changes in work schedules and her terms and conditions of work applicable
to the employees in the unit now alleged to be appropriate for the purposes
of a collective bargain, it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
:Its motion to dismiss was bottomed upon the express contention that it is not
an employer within the meaning of the Act, that it is not engaged in commerce
,or a business affecting commerce as those terms are defined in the statute, and
that it did not , by the course of conduct described in the complaint , burden or
obstruct commerce.
Thereafter , in a stipulation , the Respondent ,. by its attorney , J. P. Helman
tthe Union , by its representative , W. W. Wallace ; and Margaret L. Fassig, counsel
for the General Counsel, on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board , waived
notice and hearing in the case . The parties agreed that the entire record
in this matter was to consist of their stipulation , which contains certain factual
-recitals , and certain documents listed and described in it or attached thereto,
in lieu of testimony taken and documentary evidence received by a Trial Ex-
.aminer of the Board , and that the entire record-thus , defined-would be filed
with the Board 's Division of Trial Examiners , for the issuance of an Inter-
mediate Report. The parties reserved the right, after the issuance of an Inter-
m,ediate Report, to argue orally before the Board upon the record as defined,
of the Board deemed oral arguient desirable , the right to file briefs with the
Board , and the right to litigate-before a proper United States Court of Appeals-
any question as to the application of the Act ; as amended , to the Respondent's
business.
Pursuant to the stipulation , the record in this case was submitted to me, as a
Trial Examiner duly designated ly the Associate Chief Trial Examiner, for
the preparation of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. No party
to-the-stipulation reserved the right to file a brief with me,. and no briefs have
been received.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the light of the aforesaid stipulation, and upon the entire record.in the
,case, I make the following findings of fact-
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Hallam & Boggs Truck and Implement Company, is a partner-
ship composed of W. S. Hallam, R. J. Boggs, P. W. Hallam, and Earl Fuller, doing
its principal business in Grand Junction, Colorado, as a retail distributor of farm
and truckequipment: It is now^and has been-since the autumn of 1948 at least-
.a party to five dealer sales`and-service agreements which authorize it to handle,
sell, and service products of the International Harvester Company, a New Jersey
•corporation engaged in' the design, manufacture, assembly, repair, sale, and dis-
tribution of motor trucks, farm tractors, industrial tractors, tillage implements,
planting and seeding machines, hoeing machines, and other farm equipment and
kindred items and supplies ; the Respondent's principal business activity, at all
material times, has involved the retail distribution of International Harvester
Compairy farit and 'truck equipment,' and its repair' The dealer agreements
noted authorized the Respondent to handle International Harvester's motor
trucks thud parts, crawler tractors for agricultural use, power units, farm equip-
merit, and milk coolers ; by their terms, as the Board has previously found, Inter-
national Harvester retains a substantial degree of control over the operations of
2 International Harvester maintains Its principal office in Chicago, Illinois, and operates
plants in several States.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent. The controls extend in varying degrees to such elements as price,
the sufficiency of the sales-and-service facilities, statements of the Respondent's
earnings and its financial position, the Respondent' s insurance coverage, and its
use of International Harvester's name and advertising materials.
The Respondent's total sales in 1949 amounted to approximately $430,000;
about $41,000 of this sum involved charges for shop labor. Substantially all of
its sales were made to local customers within the State of Colorado. Its total
annual purchases in 1949 amounted to approximately $321,000; this amount in-
cluded $67,000 worth of motor trucks, $37,000 worth of farm equipment, and
$55,000 worth of repair parts, all purchased from the International Harvester
Company. Some of these purchases, involving about $67,000 worth of equipment,
were shipped to the Respondent from points outside of the State. While the re-
mainder of the Respondent's purchases from International Harvester may, have
been shipped, as the Respondent alleges in its answer, from Denver, Colorado,
and other points within that State, the Board's decision in a representation tease
involving the Respondent, noted elsewhere in this report, found that all of, the
merchandise so purchased and shipped was manufactured outside of the State.
I so find.
It has been stipulated, and I find, that the business operations of the Re-
spondent in 1950 continued at substantially the same volume noted for the.pre-
vious calendar year.
The Respondent's answer, which has not been denied in this respect, alleges
that it is not restricted to the sale of International Harvester products, and that
it handles a considerable quantity of farm equipment, and repair parts for.farm
equipment, of other makes, and engages in the repair of farm equipment at its
shop. The Respondent also alleges, without contradiction, and I find, that. ap-
proximately $68,000 worth of its total annual purchases were for products. other
than those made by International Harvester ; all of these purchases except, for
items valued at $9,000 approximately, came to it from the Grand Junction, Colo-
rado, area and Denver. About $36,000 worth of its total annual purchases in-
volve used equipment and trade-ins, all of which are purchased locally in Mesa
County, Colorado.
The Respondent contends that the Act has no application to it, and that the
Board has no jurisdiction over it or the subject matter of this case, on the ground
that it is not an employer engaged in interstate commerce, or in business activ-
ities which affect such commerce, Within the meaning of those terms as statu-
torily defined. I find no merit in this contention. In the light of the facts herein
found, I conclude, in accordance with an established Board decisional policy,
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce, and activities which
affect commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.'
In addition, I find that the Respondent, by virtue of its sales-and-service agree-
ments, operates as an integral part of a multistate enterprise ; pursuant to the
Board's recently enunciated policy,' I find that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act, in this case, to assert the Board's jurisdiction.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 9, A. H. of L,,
hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act, which admits to membership employees of. the
Respondent.
N. L. R. B. v. M. L. Townsend, 185 F. 2d 3,78 (C. A. 9), 26 LRRM 2561 ; Herboth
Tractor Co., at al., 79 NLRB 431.
4 Baxter Brothers, 91 NLRB 1480, 27' LRRM 1027 and the cases therein cited.
HALLAM & BOUGS ;PRUCK AND IMPLEMENT CO. 1449
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit. and - the Union's status as the representative of a
majority therein
Upon a petition for certification as the representative of certain employees
of the Respondent, filed by the Union on July 18, 1950, and a formal hearing
thereon, in the matter of Hallam & Boggs Truck and Implement Company,
Case No. 30-RC-343, -the Board, on January 15, 1951, directed that an election
be held to determine the representative status of the Union, in a unit defined
to consist of all the Respondent's shop employees, including the mechanics,
mechanic trainee, and setup men, but exclusive of office and clerical employees,
partsmen, janitor, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, which unit
the Board found appropriate for the purposes of a collective bargain within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the statute. I find, on the basis of the Board's
determination, and contrary to the Respondent's contention, that the unit, thus
defined, is appropriate for the stated purpose.
Pursuant to the Board's decision and. direction, an election was conducted under
the auspices of the Regional Director, on February 7, 1951. As a result of the
election, the Board issued its Certification of Representatives on February 15,
1951, certifying that the Union had been designated and selected by a majority
of the Respondent's employees, in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
for the purposes of collective bargaining, as their-- representative' for that Fur
pose. I find that on February 15, 1951, and at all material times thereafter,.
the Union was the designated representative of a 'majority of the employees
in the unit herein found appropriate for the purposes' of collective bargaining,.
and'that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, it was-entitled
to act as the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the aforesaid.
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to their rates of pay,.
wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment.
B: The refusal to bargain -
On March 9, 1951, W. W. Wallace, business agent of the Union, wrote a letter
to the Respondent,. requesting an appointment to enter into collective bargaining
with it on behalf of the employees for whom the Union had been certified.
as an exclusive representative. In response to the Union's request that.negotia-
tions for a collective bargaining agreement begin, the Respondent's attorneys,.
Helman and Younge, by J. P. Helman, replied on March 14, 1951, by letter, that
the Respondent did not "recognize" the Union as the bargaining agent or repre-
sentative' of its employees, and did not "care" to -enter into negotiations with it.
in regard to their wages, hours, and conditions of work. The Union was advised.
that the Respondent did not believe the Board to have jurisdiction over it or
its retail business, that it believed the motion to dismiss presented on its behalf'
in the representation case should have been sustained, and that the election
conducted pursuant to the - Board's order, and its certification of the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees, therefore, involved action beyond'
the Board's jurisdiction, wholly invalid and without effect.
Since March 14, 1951, the Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of any of
Its employees.
On or shortly before April 2, 1951, the Respondent issued and circulated among'
its shop employees a letter announcing its intention to change existing work
schedules and certain other terms and conditions of shop employment. The.
Respondent's motivation for these changes was detailed ; the letter concluded
1450 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the observation that the shop employees had been advised of the changes
in order to enable them to "understand" the necessity for them, and to "co-
operate" with the Respondent to give better and more efficient service to its
customers. Employees who wished to discuss the matter further or to raise
a question with respect to it, were invited to confer with R. J. Boggs, a mem-
ber of the Respondent partnership, in his office after working hours. The Re-
spondent, by stipulation, admits that it thereafter effectuated the 'changes,an-
nounced in the letter. I so find.
In the light of the admitted facts, as set forth above, I find -that on March
14, 1951, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused and continues to
refuse, in violation of the Act, to recognize and bargain with the Union, and that
it has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees thereby in the
exercise of rights statutorily guaranteed.
tV. THE EFFECT OF THE LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, which occurred
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described 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 burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent engaged and is now engaging in
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It has been found, specifically, that the.Respondent refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in a
unit appropriate for the purposes of a collective bargain, and that it has taken
certain action affecting work schedules and other terms and conditions of shop
employment without notice to the Union or consultation with it. Accordingly,
it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit herein found
to be appropriate for the purposes of a collective bargain, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody 'such understanding in a signed agreement.
Because the Respondent's refusal to bargain, as indicated, was based. entirely
upon its view that the Board was without jurisdiction to establish the status
of the Union as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and
bedause the record, as stipulated, contains;no evidence sufficient, in my,gpinion,
to warrant an inference that any danger with respect to the commission of
other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct
in the past, I will not recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from the
commission of any such other labor practices. However, in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act, I. will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist .
from the specific unfair labor practices found, as set. forth above, and that it
cease and desist from any acts which might tend to interfere in any manner,
with the efforts of the Union to negotiate with it, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the collective bargaining unit herein found to be appropriate.°
6 May Department Stores v . N. T. R. B., 326 U. S. 3T6; N. L. R. R. v. Express Publishing
Company, 312 U. S. 426.
EDWARDS BROTHERS , INC. 1451
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
In the light of these findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following conclusions of law:
1. The Respondent, Hallam & Boggs Truck and. Implement Company is an.
employer engaged in trade, traffic , and commerce , and business activities which
affecikacommerce, within the meaning of Section, 2 (2), (6), and (7) oVtli'e Act.
2. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 9 , A. F. of L., is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All of the Respondent's shop employees , including the mechanics , mechanic
trainees , and setup men, but exclusive of office and clerical employees , parts-
men, janitor , 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 February 15, 1.951, and at all times since has been, en-
titled to act as the''exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid.
unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
5. By its refusal, on March 14, 1951, and at all times thereafter , to bargain,
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining, the Respondent engaged and has.
continued to engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section.
S (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By its interference with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively on
behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent engaged
and has continued . to engage in unfair :labor =practices within . the,! meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) 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.]
EDWARDS BROTHERS , INC. and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Cage No..7-CA-350. August 09,1951
Decision - and Order
On April 9, 1951, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed.
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
I 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]. .
95 NLRB No. 196.