Retail Clerks International Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1638 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The aforesaid Supreme Bedding and Furniture Manufacturing Company,
Inc., has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
•
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1179, AFL and
GAMBLE-SKOGMO, INC., D/B/A WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY.
Case No. 20-CC-77. April 03,1951
Decision and Order
On January 23, 1951, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued
his Intermediate Report, finding that the Respondent engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of
the Act, as alleged in the complaint, 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Styles].
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as
the record, including the exceptions and brief, in our opinion ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner'
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Retail Clerks International
Association, Local 1179, AFL, and its officers, representatives, succes-
sors, assigns, and agents, shall :
1. Cease and desist, during the effective period of the certification
issued by a Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board
on October 6, 1950, in Case No. 20-RC-1043, or any other certification
1 See Oppenheim Collins h Co., Inc., 83 NLRB 355, where the Board found a violation
of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act.
93 NLRB No. 272.
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1179, AFL1639
by the Board of a labor organization, other than Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, Local 1179, AFL, from engaging in, or inducing
and encouraging the employees of Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., d/b/a West-
ern Auto Supply Company, to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to perform services, where an object thereof is
to force or require said Company to recognize or bargain with the Re-
spondent as the representative of any employees of said Company in
the collective bargaining unit of employees covered by such certifica-
tion.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office in or closest to
Contra Costa County, California, including all places where notices
or communications to members are customarily posted, a copy of the
notice attached hereto as Appendix A 2 Copies of the notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth 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. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by other material. -
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San
Francisco, California), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF GAMBLE-SKOGMO, INC.
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 members and employees of
Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., d/b/a Western Auto Supply Company, that:
During the operative and effective period of a certain certifica-
tion of employee representatives issued by the National Labor
Relations Board on October 6, 1950, in Case No. 20-RC-1043, or
any other certification of a labor organization, other than Retail
Clerks International Association, Local 1179, AFL, we will not
engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Gamble-
Skogmo, Inc., to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the
Y If this Order is enforced by a 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."
0
1640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials,
or commodities , or to perform services , where an object thereof
is to force or require Gamble -Skogmo, Inc., to recognize or bar-
gain with us as the representative of any employees of Gamble-
Skogmo, Inc., in the collective bargaining unit of employees
covered by such certification.
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
AssocIATloN, LOCAL 1179, AFL,
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 and Recommended Order
Harry Bamford, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Todd and Todd, by Henry C. Todd, Esq., San Francisco, Calif., for the Union.
Mr. R. V. Langford, Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., cl/b/a Western Auto Supply
Company, herein called the Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board,' by the Regional Director of the Twentieth Region (San Fran-
cisco, California), issued his complaint dated November 30, 1950, against Retail
Clerks International Association, Local 1179, AFL, herein called the Respondent
or the Union, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (4) (C) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice
of hearing were duly served upon the Company and the Union, and a copy of the
charge was duly served upon the Respondent.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent engaged in, and induced employees of the Company and of
other employers to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal to use, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to per-
form services, an object thereof being to force or require the Company to recog-
nize or bargain with the Union as representative of employees in an appropriate
unit for which Retail Delivery Drivers, Driver-Salesmen and Helpers, Local 588,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, AFL, herein called the Teamsters, had been certified as exclusive
bargaining representative, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8
(b) (4) (C) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer the Respondent denied the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at San Francisco, Califoi nia, on Decem-
ber 19 and 20, 1950, before William E. Spencer, the undersigned duly designated
Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing
I The General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing will be called
hereinafter the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board, the Board.
6
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1179, AFL1641
where full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded them.
Upon the completion of the taking of evidence, the undersigned reserved ruling
on Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint because of failure of proof.
The motion is disposed of by the findings and conclusions below. At the close
of the hearing there was oral discussion of the issues and thereafter the Respond-
ent availed itself of the opportunity afforded all parties to file a brief with the
undersigned.
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 COMPANY
Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., d/b/a Western Auto Supply Company, a Delaware cor-
poration having its principal offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is engaged in the
business of operating stores in many States throughout the United States, selling
and distributing merchandise at retail and wholesale. Said Company, in its
Western Division, under the name of Western Auto Supply Company, maintains
and operates stores in the course of its business in various cities in California,
and in particular at Richmond, Martinez, and Pittsburg, California.
During the calendar year 1949 the Western Division of the Company purchased
merchandise fol resale value in excess of $1,000,000, of which amount approxi-
inately 78 percent was shipped to it from places outside of the State of Cali-
fornia. During the same period, the Company's sales of merchandise were in
excess of $1,000,000, of which amount approximately 50 percent was shipped to
places outside of the State of California.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent and Retail Delivery Drivers, Driver-Salesmen and Helpers, Local
58S, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chautteurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
Collective bargaining between the Company and the Union started in 1938.
The last contract executed by these parties expired July 3, 1949. Negotiations for
a new contract began on or about April 28, 1949, and continued until September
1949, when the parties reached an impasse on economic issues. Thereafter, on
September 12, 1949, the Union called a strike against the Company in its three
stores located in Contra Costa County, California, where the bargaining rela-
tionship between these parties had continued since 1938. The Union, in further-
ance of its strike objectives, placed peaceful pickets at each of the three stores.
The Company continued its operations, and from time to time was successful
in obtaining permanent replacements for certain of its employees who had joined
in the strike. The Union continued its strike and picketing.
On or about June 12, 1950, the Teamsters filed with the Board a representation
petition affecting the Company's Contra Costa County employees. (Case No.
20-RC-1043 ) A hearing was held on the petition on July 17, 1950, in which the
Union participated as an intervenor. On September 7, 1950, the Board issued its
decision and direction of election in the case. (Western Auto Supply Company,
a Division of Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 91 NLRB No. 24.) Pursuant thereto, an elec-
1642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion was held on September 28, 1950. The Union, at its request, did not appear
on the ballot and the Teamsters won the election. On October 6, 1950, the-
Teamsters was certified as exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's
employees in an appropriate unit.
Picketing by the Union continued uninterruptedly until approximately Novem-
ber 22, 1950, at which time the pickets were removed pursuant to a temporary
restraining order obtained by the Company in a State court. Following the
certification of the Teamsters the placards worn by those picketing for the
Union read :
ATTENTION
JOHN Q PUBLIC
THE PERSONS WORKING
IN THIS STORE ARE
STRIKEBREAKERS
AND ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE
RETAIL CLERKS' UNION, NO. 1179, AFL
PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE
The picketing was peaceful at all times.
On or about October 18, R. V. Langford, the Company's personnel director,
approached Dewey Ainsworth, an employee, on the Union's picket line and asked
him to return to work, stating that the Company needed him badly. Ainsworth
refused to return to work and directed Langford to see Esther Luther, the
Union's secretary-treasurer. On the following day, Langford called Luther by
telephone and asked her to remove the pickets, mentioning in the conversation
the Board's certification of the Teamsters and his offer to return Ainsworth to
his job. Luther declined to have the pickets removed and at a meeting with
those picketing that same evening or the next morning, instructed them to dis-
play, while picketing, the placard previously described. Luther testified that
she so acted on advice of the Union's parent body. Questioned extensively on
the topic, Luther was unable to recall any action taken by the Union to terminate
the strike. To Langford's offer to employ Ainsworth and other union members
as needed, Luther, in refusing the offer, stated that employment by the Company
would require them to become members of the Teamsters 2
B. The issues; conclusions
It is the General Counsel's position that, by continuing its strike and picketing
on and after the date of certification of the Teamsters, the Union violated Section
8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act. The applicable portions of the Act read:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents
. . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer
to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where
an object thereof is: (C) forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or
bargain with a particular labor organization as the representative of his
employees if another labor organization has been certified as the repre-
sentative of such employees under the provisions of section 9... .
2 At that time no contract had been executed by the Company and the Teamsters.
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1179, AFL1643
The initial object of the Union's strike and picketing, which began on Sep-
tember 12 , 1949, was to force or require the Company to execute a contract em-
bodying terms satisfactory to the Union. If this initial object was an object
,of the strike and picketing which was continued after the Teamsters had been
certified , a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) is established 3 Clearly, forcing
,or requiring an employer to execute a contract is the application in the particular
of "forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular
labor organization," because the negotiation of a contract is of the essence of
recognition and collective bargaining. It is equally clear that by continuing its
picketing of the Company's premises after the Teamsters had been certified, the
Union induced and encouraged employees concertedly to withhold their services
from the Company." The inducement or encouragement may not have been
effective except as to employees affiliated with or sympathetic to the Union;
but the maintenance of the picket line, with its placards denouncing those who
remained at work as strikebreakers, was nonetheless inducement and encourage-
ment and about as strong an appeal to employees to join in a concerted refusal
to work as could be devised short of threats or force. I find that the continued
picketing constituted inducement and encouragement within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act.
Turning now to the crucial determination of whether or not the Union's strike
and picketing following the certification of the Teamsters had as an object
the forcing or requiring of the Company to bargain with the Union.
Counsel for the Union contends in his brief that following the certification
,of the Teamsters the Union stopped picketing the Company because of an eco-
nomic strike and picketed thereafter for the sole purpose of advertising to the
public its dispute with the Company, in order to channel trade away from
the Company to certain of its competitors employing union members. This
contention merits consideration, posing as it does a problem somewhat analogous
to the publication of an unfair lists It would appear, however, that to maintain
this position it was incumbent on the Union to show a distinct line of demarca-
tion in its strike objectives at or about the time the Teamsters became the cer-
tified representatives of the Company's employees. This is required because,
admittedly, prior to the certification of the Teamsters, the strike and picketing
had as their object the forcing or requiring of the Company to sign a collective
bargaining contract with the Union , and it is a valid presumption that this
8 Counsel for the Union , while stipulating that the Union called a strike which became
'effective on September 12, 1949, and that the picketing continued thereafter past the
certification of the Teamsters , argued at the hearing that following the certification there
was picketing liut no strike The presumption is that the strike continued until it was
terminated by the Union and such evidence as was offered, through the testimony of
Luther, indicates that the Union at no time terminated the strike . That the Union itself
regarded the strike as continuing after the certification of the Teamsters , is shown in
placards displayed by those picketing which referred to employees remaining at work
as "strikebreakers ." In any event , whether or not it is considered that the strike con-
tinued past the certification , it is admitted that the picketing continued , and that alone
is sufficient to constitute inducement and encouragement within the meaning of the Act
4It is noted that the scope of the proscribed inducement or encouragement is not
limited to the employees of the employer against whom the activity is directed, but
embraces "the employees of any employer."
5 At the least, it was effective as to Ainsworth who withheld his services at the Union's
bidding, and presumably as to one or two additional employees who had formerly worked
for the Company and were embraced in Langford's offer , made to Luther , to employ union
members. As stated above , however, the effectiveness or lack of it of the encouragement
and inducement is not a proper criterion for determining whether the encouragement
and inducement exists.
e See Denver Building cf Construction Trades Council (Grauman), 87 NLRB 755.
1644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continued to be an object of these activities following the certification, unless
there is evidence that the Union changed its objectives
As evidence that the object of its strike and picketing activities was changed
upon certification of the Teamsters, the Union relies on the fact, duly estab-
lished, that it made no demands on the Company for recognition and a contract
after the Teamsters had been certified, and the placards which were displayed
by those picketing only after the certification.
The fact that the Union did not renew its demands for recognition and a con-
tract following certification of the Teamsters is of slight significance. The
Company would reasonably understand, and it would reasonably be inferred,
in the absence of any communication from the Union to the contrary, that by
its continued strike activities the Union was continuing to exert economic pres-
sure for the purpose of obtaining a contract When Langford notified Luther
that the Teamsters had been certified and requested that the union pickets be
withdrawn, Luther in refusing his request made no reference to a change in
union objectives Langford in a letter to the Union, dated October 27, stated,
"If you will definitely tell us just wlnj you alc continuing the pichetilig, perhaps
matters can be settled more amicably than by `going to law' " Henry C. Todd,
the Union's attorney, in his reply, dated November 1, stated, "Please permit
us to state that the pickets are at your stores for the purpose of advising the
public that some pen sons now working in your various stores replaced persons
-who were on strike and that these persons are not members of Local No. 1179
[the Union]." This letter falls far short of an unequivocal withdrawal of prior
demands that the Company execute a collective bargaining contract with the
Union, and is at va'•iance with affidavits filed by Luther and Todd on or about
November 24, 1950, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in an injunc-
tion proceeding initiated by the Company.? In her affidavit, Luther stated that
"the purpose of the picketing is to advertise to the general public that the people
working in the stores were strikebreakers and that the Company had not signed
any written collective bargaining agreement with Local 1179." Todd's affidavit
bears almost identical wordings The statements contained in these affidavits
stand for an admission that one of the motivating causes of the continued strike
and picketing was that the Company had not executed a collective bargaining-
agreement with the Union.
The placards displayed on the picket line after certification of the Teamsters
were addressed to the public and are not inconsistent with the Union's conten-
tion that the picLeting from the date of the certification was for the purpose of
advertising the U nion 's dispute with the Company. It does not follow that this
was necessarily the sole object of the strike and picketing following the certi-
fication, and it is sufficient to establish a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (C)
if one of the objects was to force or require the Company to bargain with the
Union. It is also true that these placards, being displayed for the first time-
following the certification of the Teamsters, give some support to the Union's
claim of a changed objective I am not persuaded, however, that either the
Union's self-serving declarations contained in Todd's letter to Langford of
November 1 and the affidavits of Luther and Todd filed in the injunction pro-
ceeding before the State court, or the placards carried by the pickets following
the certification of the Teamsters, are sufficient to establish a line of demarca-
tion from which it may reasonably be inferred that following certification
7 Gamble-Skogmo , Inc, a corporation v Retail Clerks Union Local 1179, A. F. L., an
unincorporated association, et al., No. 50348.
8 The ruling restricting admission in evidence of portions of these documents is hereby
extended to include the entire documents.
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1179, AFL1645
the Union no longer sought to require the Company to bargain with it The
-continuous, uninterrupted character of the strike, the Union's admissions in
its affidavits filed with the State court that the Company's refusal to sign a
contract with it was one of the motivating causes of the continued picketing,
the failure of the Union to inform the Company at any time following the certi-
fication that it no longer sought to require the Company to execute a contract
with it, convince the undersigned that an object of the strike and picketing
following certification was to force the Company to resume collective bargain-
ing with the Union. The pressures exerted by the Union through the mainte-
nance of its picket line, its inducement and encouragement of employees to with-
hold their services from the Company, its admitted purpose of channeling busi-
ness away from the Company to its competitors, are most reasonably construed
under the circumstances of this case as measures which had as their primary
object the forcing or requiring of the Company to come to terms with the Union.
Clearly, nothing short of recognition and a resumption of collective bargaining
would have caused the Union to terminate its strike and picketing activities,
because the gravamen of its disaffection was that if its members were employed
by the Company they would be required to work under a contract negotiated
by the Teamsters.
Respondent's counsel has argued vigorously and eloquently that the picket-
ing engaged in by the Union herein, being peaceful in character, was privileged
under Section 8 (c) of the Act and protected by the constitutional guarantee of
free speech. The picketing, admittedly, was peaceful at all times, but the Board
and the Courts have held that where picketing has an objective proscribed by
the Act, is not protected free speech, nor does it fall within the purview of
Section 8 (c) of the Act' As I see it, the weight of authority is thus arrayed
against distinguished counsel and I bow, as indeed I must, to precedents.
It is found that the Union, by continuing its strike and picketing of the Com-
pany's premises following the certification of the Teamsters on October 6, 1950,
thereby inducing and encouraging 'employees concertedly to withhold their
services from the Company, with an object of forcing or requiring the Company
to recognize and bargain with it, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (C) 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 Company 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 burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, the undersigned
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmativo
action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local 501 , et at ( Samuel Langer),
181 F 2d 34 (C A. 2), enforcing 82 NLRB 1028 ; Giboney et at v . Empire Storage it Ice
Co, 336 U. S . 490; Local 74, United Bi otherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
A F of L, at at ( Watson Specialty ), 181 F. 2d 126 ( C. A. 6), enforcing 80 NLRB 533;
Building Service Employees International Union Local 262, at at v . Gazzain, 339 U S 532
Denver Building Ti ides Council, 90 NLRB 1768.
1646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., d/b/a Western Auto Supply Company, is engaged in,
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Retail) Clerks International Association, Local 1179, AFL, and Retail
Delivery Drivers, Driver-Salesmen and Helpers, Local 588, Internationab
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, are, respectively, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5),
of the Act.
3. On and since October 6, 1950, Retail Delivery Drivers, Driver-Salesmen
and Helpers, Local 588, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, has been certified by the Board
as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Company in an
appropriate unit, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
4. From October 6, 1950, to on or about November 22, 1950, the Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C)
of the Act, by engaging in a strike and inducing and encouraging the employees
of the Company to engage in a strike and a concerted refusal in the course of
their employment to transport or otherwise handle work on goods, articles,
materials, commodities, and to perform services for the Company, an object
thereof being to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with,
Respondent as the representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, not-
withstanding that the Teamsters had been certified by the Board as the exclusive
representative of said employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
COMPRESSED AIR, FOUNDATION, CAISSON, TUNNEL, S UBWAY, SEWER,
COFFERDAM CONSTRUCTION LOCAL UNION No. 147 OF NEW YORK,
NEW JERSEY STATES AND VICINITIES and JAMES P. KENNY . Case No.
2-CB-117. April 23,1951
Decision and Order
On August 31, 1950, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin 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, the Gen-
neral Counsel, and the charging party filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs. The Respondent has requested
oral argument before the Board. As the record and the exceptions
and briefs, in our opinion, adequately'present the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties, this request is hereby denied.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
93 NLRB No. 274.