The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL.LABOR^RELATIONS BOARD
The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company i and American
Federation of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 4-RC-4628. February 7, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION,; OF ELECTIONS
Upon a; petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) 'of the Natioiial'Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Chester S. Montgomery,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's 'rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 McCulloch and Meinbers'Leedom'and Brown].'
'Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1.' The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meariing'of the
Act.
2. The'labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the' representa-
tion of. employees of the Employer within the meaning ,of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section '2 (6) and' (7) of the Act.
'4. The Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, operation here in-
volved, which is known as its materials handling division, is under the
general direction of 'its vice president and general,' manager. The
operation is divided into broad subdivisions, each of which (except the
financial 'subdivision under the controller) has a manager. These sub-
divisions are further divided into departments headed by managers.
In those' departments which have project and design engineers, the
project engineers are on a level of authority directly below the depart-
ment manager, and the design engineers are'on the next lower level.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of the technical employees at this opera-'
tion, including the professional employees if they vote for inclusion,
but excluding employees at the Employer's Forrest, City plant, which
is,separately located.2 The Employer does not dispute the appropri-
ateness of such a unit. Moreover, it agrees with the Petitioner as to
the unit placement of a number of categories 3 The parties also stipu-
lated to the supervisory status of certain project engineers, but they
are in dispute as to others in this category and as to the status of the
1 The name of the Eiaployer appears as amended at the hearing
2iThe Emplover has collective-bargaining relations at its Philadelphia operation with
the Machinists,' the Operating Engineers, and the Office Employees unions
3 The agreements of the parties include the supervisory status of certain 'individuals ;
the professional status of project, design , and manufacturing engineers, and of one sales
engineer ; and the technical status of product designers , detail and layout draftsmen ;
the classifier engineer, drawing ; tool designers ; tool draftsmen , engineering changes ;
methods engineers ; and methods men. We have adopted all of these stipulations except
with regard to certain manufacturing engineers discussed below.
135 NLRB No. 98.
THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 927
design engineers. The Petitioner contends that no engineers other
than those whose supervisory status was stipulated should'be-consid-
ered supervisors, even though some direct the work of subordinates, on
the grounds that (1) there would be a disproportionate ratio of super-
visors to subordinates, and (2) the relationship hereinvolved is that
of skilled to less skilled employees. The Employer contends that all
these engineers should be considered (1) supervisory because they have
inherent supervisory authority even though some niay not currently
exercise it; and/or (2) managerial because they have broad areas of
responsibility. The record does not support these general contentions
of the Petitioner or the Employer; we will therefore discuss below the
status of the various disputed individuals.
A. Engineering
1. The product development department regularly includes Project
Engineers Dannettell,4 Ballantyne, Kearns, and Heberly; Design
Engineers'Garnich and Rohosy; and a layout draftsman and a secre-
tary. It is, however, customary for this department to borrow people
from other departments in engineering for drafting and experimental
work on specific projects.
The parties stipulated to the supervisory status of Dannettell.
While the record is not clear with respect to his status as it supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, it does indicate that his interests are
closely allied with those of management; he shall therefore be ex-
cluded. Ballantyne, formerly manager of the electric truck design
department, was transferred to this department so as to be in a position
to replace the manager, who was expected to retire in 2 years. He
works closely with the manager, is consulted on hire, and recommends
discipline and discharge. He works on some projects alone or may
draw on other departments for personnel. He is currently developing
a motorized handtruck, on which project he is supervising Garnich, the
design engineer. We find that Ballantyne is a supervisor and exclude
him. Kearns has recommended the hire of employees to work under
him, and, at the time of the hearing, was supervising the layout drafts-
man and had been doing so for about 18 mnontlis. We find that he is a
supervisor and exclude hint. Heberly and Design Engineers Garnich
and Rohosy are not exercising any supervisory duties or functions
and indeed have no subordinates. Accordingly, we reject the conten-
tion that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. As the
parties agree that they have professional status, we shall include them
in the professional voting group.
2. The gas truck design department has 3 project engineers, Henry,
Huberti, and Pleier; one design engineer, Wright; and 13 employees
The names of individuals which were spelled in various ways in the record are set
forth herein as they appear most frequently in the transcript of the hearing.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
below the,level of design engineer . The parties stipulated to Henry's
supervisory, status, but disagree as to Huberti , Pleier, and Wright, all
of whom the, Employer contends are supervisors.
Each of these project engineers has about three or four employees
with whom each works consistently, although the individual employees
may vary. . Huberti currently assigns work . to Wright and in connec-
tion with a ,new gas,truck project in his charge , he assigns work to
product designer and three layout draftsmen .' Carliss , manager of
the entire engineering department , testified that Huberti - interviews
prospective employees , that his recommendations with respect to hire
"carry considerable weight, " and that he can also • recommend dis-
charge. Pleier, like the other project engineers , interviews prospective
employees , recommends hire , assigns work to employees under his
direction, and can recommend discharge .' He has been devoting most
of the past year to a major Government contract for rough terrain
trucks, in connection with which he has requested additional person-
nel. We find that the authority of Huberti and Pleier is similar to
that of Henry, whose supervisory status was stipulated , that all three
responsibly direct employees in a manner ' requiring the exercise of in-
dependent judgment, and they are , therefore, excluded as supervisors.
Wright, the design engineer , is engaged in developmental work on
complicated structures , and designs the detailing ' of various projects
under his control. For periods of 2 or 3 months he may work alone
but at other times he assigns work to two or three draftsmen. He
spends about 6 hours a day at the drafting board , the remainder check-
ing the work of employees assigned to him and conferring with others
on his projects. While he is not authorized to recommend hire, he
can recommend disciplinary action, including discharge. We find
that he is a supervisor within the meaning of -the Act and exclude him.
3. The electric truck design department has 4 project engineers,
Liscek, Olsen , Houseman, and Kirby;' 4 design engineers , Hein, Keene,
Moszkowicz, and Lepkowski ; and 20 other employees . The parties
stipulated to the supervisory status of Liscek, Olsen, and Houseman,
but did not stipulate as'to Kirby or the design engineers . Kirby has
been a project engineer for less time than the other three. Although
he does not currently have any employees assigned to him, he is ex-
pected to have subordinates as the result of a planned change in the
department 's structure . As he is being groomed to exercise the same
supervisory authority as the other project engineers in the depart-
ment, we shall exclude him .5
Hein currently directs two product designers and at least one drafts-
man; Moszkowicz directs one, and Keene two, product designers, and,
it appears , both also direct one or more draftsmen . They are author-
ized to recommend hire , discipline , and discharge , and Carliss testified
5 Cherokee Textile Mills, Inc, 117 NLRB 350, 351
-THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 929
that it would be "most- unusual" if their' recommendations were not
followed although the final decision would-be made on a higher level.
Lepkowski had, the, same authority until about 6 months prior to the
hearing when he was transferred to a special assignment requiring, no
subordinates. Carliss testified that under the present operating sched-
ule, Lepkowski's special assignment was expected to terminate before
the end of 1961, at which time he would again exercise supervisory
authority. Accordingly, we find that all four of these design engineers
are supervisors and exclude them. , , ; • 4 .
4. The attachment design,'department. , Cooper,-,the only project
engineer in this department„ assigns work to the three product der
signers and the draftsman, is responsible for.,their performance,
grades them for merit increases, and, makes, recommendations thereon.
We find that, he is a supervisor and. he is therefore, excluded.
5.4The. engineering administration, and. services department has 3
project engineers; 1 classifier engineer, drawing; and 15 employees in
its blueprinting operation. The parties stipulated to the supervisory
status of Di Ilio, one of,the,thFqe-project engineers,rwho supervises
the blueprinting employees, but, are in disagreement as to the other
two, Joyce and.,Scheffey, whom the Employer would exclude.
The record indicates that there are three men who serve, in advisory
staff capacities to Carliss, manager of the engineering department :
Joyce and Scheffey, • as well, as Dannettell, discussed above, who is
excluded as a managerial employee. Carliss, in fact, testified that the
work of Joyce and Scheffey were extensions of, his own efforts in
managing the entire department. In addition, Joyce and Scheffey
maintain engineering liaison with the chief engineers in the Em-
ployer's foreign divisions and with its licensees, and, as Carliss testi-
fied, Joyce handles most of the policy questions raised by these foreign
divisions and licensees. Upon the entire record, we find that the
interests of Joyce and Scheffey are closely allied with those of manage-
ment, and they are, therefore, excluded from the professional voting
group.
B. Manuu f aduring
1. The manufacturing engineering:department,consists of the chief
manufacturing engineer; 4 manufacturing engineers, Della Pia,
Pfluger, Brown, and Bennet; 12 methods engineers and methods men;
and 2 tool, record analysts.,- The parties stipulated to the supervisory
status of Della Pia, who supervises 11 employees involved in opera-
tions scheduling, but are in dispute as to Pfluger, Brown, and Ben-
net, whom the Employer would exclude as managerial employees.
Pfluger, who was formerly a toolmaker, works throughout the
plant. He serves as master mechanic, solves major manufacturing
problems, and sees to it that products are assembled properly and
634449-62-vol. 135-60
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
economically. Brown, an industrial engineer, provides technical as-
sistance to the manufacturing supervisors in all phases of fabricating,
sees to it that manufacturing is carried out economically, and makes
recommendations to the engineering and quality control departments
with respect to product changes. Bennet, a time-study man, works
with from two to five methods engineers as a team, under the super-
vision of the chief manufacturing engineer, to evaluate product de-
signs for manufacturing feasibility, estimate their costs, and deter-
mine how new products are to be manufactured. We find that
Pfluger, Brown, and Bennet do not formulate and effectuate manage-
ment policies, and are therefore not managerial employees'i as that
term is defined by the Board.
The parties stipulated that Pfluger, Brown, and Bennet are pro-
fessional employees. We find that Brown, who is an'industrial engi-
neer registered in the State of Pennsylvania, whose position requires
a college degree or its equivalent, and whose duties conform with the
requirements of Section 2 (12) of the Act, is a professional employee.
As the record shows, however, that Pfluger is not a college graduate;
that Bennet has a college degree in journalism, and has taken only a
few technical courses; and that their work does not conform with the
requirements of Section 2 (12) of the Act, we find that they are not
professional employees. As their work is of a technical nature involv-
ing the use of independent judgment and requiring the exercise of
specialized' training usually acquired in colleges or technical schools
or through special courses, we find that they are technical employees.'
2. The tool and equipment engineering department. As" Graf, the
chief tool designer, is foreman of the department and supervises seven
tool designers and draftsmen, we find that he is a supervisor, as the
Employer contends, and exclude him.
C. Service
1. The service cataloging department, in addition to its manager,
seven draftsmen, and two clerk-typists, has a catalog layout tech-
nician, Stevens, and a service engineering technician, Booth, both of
whom the Employer contends are supervisors while the Petitioner
contends they are not. Stevens and Booth were called assistant man-
agers until January 1961, when their new titles were put into effect.
The department prepares approximately 50 catalogs, which fall into
2 basic categories, with Stevens in charge of one category and Booth
of the other. The department manager assigns projects to Stevens
and Booth, who, in turn, assign work to the draftsmen. They edit the
draftsmen's work before final release. Stevens and Booth interview
applicants and recommend hire, discharge, assignment of overtime,
0 Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 724.
THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 931
and disciplinary action, although final decisions are made on higher
levels. Recommendations for merit increases, which are usually initi-
ated in the industrial relations department and then sent to the
various department heads for evaluation, must be passed on by
Stevens and/or. Booth before approval by the department manager.
We find that Stevens and Booth are supervisors and exclude them.
Disputed Professional and Technical Classifications
1. Experimental mechanics. The engineering laboratory, a depart-
ment in engineering, in addition to its manager, whose supervisory
status was stipulated, consists of 15 experimental mechanics.. The
Petitioner contends that they are technical employees, noting that their
duties have not changed "dramatically" since the Board found that
experimental mechanics were technical employees in a 1955 decision
involving the Employer.' The Employer contends that more recent
Board decisions establish that they are not technical employees.'
These experimental mechanics work in the laboratory located in a
walled-in portion of the plant about 1,500 feet from the, assembly
line, in an area assigned to the engineering manager. Their primary
task is the construction and testing of prototype models in accordance
with drawings or verbal instructions supplied by the laboratory
manager or by. the project and design engineers.. While the assembly
line mechanics are hourly paid and work on an, incentive system,
the experimental mechanics are salaried as are other engineering
employees. Most of the experimental mechanics are high school
graduates,.but there is no educational requirement for the job.. The
only requirements are the same as those for first -class mechanics on
the assembly line, namely, mechanical skill and ability to read blue-
prints. Occasionally, in emergency situations, mechanics may be bor-
rowed from the assembly line to work as experimental mechanics, and
there have also been permanent transfers from the assembly line to
the laboratory. Upon the entire record, we find that these experi-
mental mechanics lack the training and skills of technical employees
as that term is defined by the Board.' However, as their duties and
interests are related to those of the technical employees and demon-
strate their community of interest with these employees, we shall
include them in the technical voting group.10
2. Standards engineers and standard data analysts. The Petitioner
contends that the 18 standards engineers and 9 standard data analysts
T 112 NLRB 1268, 1272.
8 The Employer relies on Jet Research Center , Inc., 128 NLRB 730, 731 ; Minneapolis-
Honeywell Regulator Co., 125 NLRB 1283, 1286 ; Whittaker Gyro Division of Tele-
computing Corporation , 125 NLRB 6, 8.
9 Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated , supra.
10 The Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101; The Ryan Aeronautical Co., 132
NLRB 1160.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in! the! industrial engineering department are professional employees.
The 'Employer argues that they are not professional , and that they
should be excluded from the technical unit on the grounds that they
are (1) supervisors because they- direct work and settle grievances
and/or (2) "management employees'?, because they set the standards
which determine wage rates. , <
The standards engineers perform what the Employer calls "ele-
mental" time studies; set job standards for the production operations
for both incentive and nonincentive work, and see to it that these
standards are applied. Their job requires a college degree, which about
half of them possess, or'it's equivalent in machine shop experience. The
standard data analysts , who apply on the assembly floor the standards
prepared by the standards engineers, have educational backgrounds
similar to those of the engineers."
Standards engineers and standard data analysts participate in `the
settlement 'of disagreements arising over standards, and over special
wage rate and related clauses in the collective-bargaining contract
covering the production and maintenance employees. At weekly meet-
ings',-'the industrial relations department explains. its interpretations
of the Employer's. "standard hour system" to these engineers and
analysts; If a-disagreement occurs'on the assembly floor, the engineer
or analyst will attempt to settle it with the operator and, if necessary,
the foreman , the union steward, and the Union 's time-study repre-
sentative. If such attempts at settlement fail, the Union can institute
grievance' proceedings.
The Board has found individuals with such duties and 'authority
not to be.supervisory or managerial." Similarly, with 'respect to the
engineers and analysts here involved, we find their limited partici-
pation in the grievance procedure' and the relation of their work'to
wage and incentive schedules insufficient to establish their supervisory
or managerial status. We find further that they are technical rather
than'professional employees,'2 and they are therefore included in the
technical voting group.
3. Tool record analysts and production planners. There are 2 tool
record analysts in the manufacturing engineering department and 15
production planners under the supervision of the production and ma-
terial control manager in manufacturing. The Petitioner contends
that these employees are technical; the Employer contends that they
are clerical.
Tool record analysts, working from operation schedules prepared by
methods men, prepare lists of tools required for each manufacturing
operation. Although their work is similar to that of the methods men,
"Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company, 119 NLRB 935, 937 ; Bulldog Electric
Products Company, 96 NLRB 642, 644.
12 Vaokera, Incorporated, 124 NLRB 1051, 1054.
THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 933
whose technical status is agreed to by the parties, analysts generally
prepare simpler records requiring standard tools, and work within
lower salary ranges. The only requirement for their job is shop ex-
perience with tools rather than with methods, and ability to read
blueprints.
There are 13 grade "A" or "B" production planners, 1 planner, high
value items; and 1 planner, special application. They examine the
complex structure of parts lists or bills of material for customer orders,
compare their requirements against existing stocks, and order neces-
sary supplies so they will be at hand when the product is to be assem-
bled and shipped. The "A" and "B" planners are assigned to a par-
ticular product line, with the "A" planner assigned to a more complex
product. The planner, high value items, instead of working on a par-
ticular customer's order, deals with a schedule of all customers' orders
on stocked items that are used repetitively. The planner, special appli-
cation, deals with the customers' orders or special projects, involving
new products. No special training is required for production planning
work, and the only educational requirement appears to be a high school
education, although the Employer prefers, in addition, 2 years' study
of business administration or its equivalent. The production and ma-
terials control manager testified that anyone who "understands
English and can read and write and do arithmetic" could be proficient
at the work once he familiarized himself with the specifications and the
product.
We find that neither the tool record analysts nor the production
planners are technical employees within the Board's definition of that
term. However, as their duties and interests are closely related to
those of the technical employees and their community of interests lies
with these employees, we shall include them with the technical
employees."
4. The sales engineers work under various sales managers in the
industrial truck sales department of marketing. The parties stipu-
lated to the professional status of Howard, the only one of the six
with an engineering degree, but are in dispute as to the other five, all
of whom the Petitioner contends are professional while the Employer
argues that they are neither professional nor technical. Their basic
function is to clarify specifications of orders which are received in
writing or over the telephone from the Employer's dealers or branches.
They also answer mail and telephone inquiries about equipment from
salesmen, prepare literature for salesmen in the field, maintain liaison
between the salesmen and the engineering department, make field
trips, keep data reference files, make incidental mathematical calcula-
tions and sketches, and work as salesmen themselves. The manager
of industrial truck sales testified that they are called "sales engineers"
13 The Sheffield Corporation , supra; The Ryan Aeronautical Co-, supra
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because that title "sounds awfully good to a' customer," and that the
only requirement. for the work is a high school, education with an in=
terest in mechanics. We find, accordingly, that these five sales en-
gineers,are'riot•professional employees within the meaning of the Act
nor technical employees as defined by the Board, and that their em-
ployment interests are substantially different from those of the pro-
fessional and- technical employees.' We 'shall, accordingly, exclude
them.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees may constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical' and professional employee's at the Employer's Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, operation, and employees with interests allied
with those of technical employees, excluding the Forrest City em-
ployees, • all production and maintenance employees, office clerical
employees, all other employees,, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act. '
However, as the Board is prohibited by Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act
from including professional employees in a unit with employees who
are not professional unless a majority of the professional employees
vote for inclusion in such •a; unit, we must ascertain the desires of the
professional employees as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional
employees. We shall therefore direct- separate elections in the follow-
ing voting groups :
(a) All technical employees at the Employer's Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvaniaoperation, including' Manufacturing Engineers Pfluger and
Bennet' standards engineers; standard data analysts; product de-
signers;' • detail draftsmen;, layout ..draftsmen; • classifier engineer,
drawing (Fox) ; tool designers;' tool draftsmen, engineering changes;
methods engineers; methods men; and also including the' following
employees with allied interests' experimental mechanics, tool record
analysts, and production planners;' but excluding Forrest City em-
ployees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical em-
ployees, all other, employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) All professional employees at the Employer's Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, operation, including project and design engineers,14
Manufacturing Engineer Brown, and Sales Engineer Howard, but
excluding other sales engineers, Forrest City employees, production
and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, all other em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The employees in the professional voting group (b) will be asked
two questions on their ballot :
','The project and design engineers included in the professional voting group are
Heberly, Garnich , Rohosy, Erlenmaier , and Schweitzer.
THE YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 935
1. Do you desire to be included with the technical employees in a
unit composed of all professional and technical employees at the
,Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, operation?
2. Do you desire to be represented for the purposes of collective
bargaining by American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-
CIO, or by no union?
If a majority of the professional employees in voting group (b)
vote "yes" to the first question, indicating their wish to be included
in a unit with the technical employees, they will be so included. Their
votes on the second question will then be counted together with the
votes of the technical voting group (a) to decide the representative
for the whole professional and technical unit. If, on the other hand,
a majority of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote
against inclusion, they will not be included with the technical em-
ployees. Their votes on the second question will then be separately
counted to decide whether or not they desire to be represented for
collective-bargaining purposes by American Federation of Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO. There is no indication in the record that the
Petitioner would be unwilling to represent the professional employees
separately if those employees vote for separate representation. How-
ever, if the Petitioner does not desire to represent the professional
employees in a separate unit, it may notify the Regional Director to
that effect within 10 days of the date of this Decision and Direction
of Elections.
Our unit determination is based in'part upon the results of the elec-
tions. However, we now make the following findings in regard to the
appropriate unit :
1. If a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in
a unit with the technical employees, and,a majority of the employees
in groups (a) and (b) vote for representation, we find that the follow-
ing employees will constitute a unit appropriate-for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All technical employees, including Manufacturing Engineers
Pfluger and Bennet; standards engineers; standard data analysts;
product designers; detail draftsmen; layout draftsmen; classifier
engineer, drawing (Fox) ; tool designers; tool draftsmen, engineering
changes; methods engineers; methods men; experimental mechanics;
tool record analysts; and production planners; and all professional
employees, including project and design engineers, Manufacturing
Engineer Brown, and Sales Engineer Howard; but excluding Forrest
City employees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical
employees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as,defined in
the Act.
2. If a majority of the professional employees do not vote for in-
clusion in a unit with the technical employees, we find that,the follow-
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing two groups of employees will constitute separate units appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
(a) All technical employees at the Employer's Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, operation, including Manufacturing Engineers Pflixger and
Bennet; standards engineers; standard data analysts; product de-
signers; detail draftsmen; layout draftsmen; classifier engineer, draw-
ing (Fox) ; tool designers; tool draftsmen, engineering changes;
methods engineers; methods men; experimental mechanics; tool rec-
ord analysts; and production planners; but excluding Forrest City
employees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical em-
ployees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) All professional employees at the Employer's Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, operation, including project and design engineers,
Manufacturing Engineer Brown, and Sales Engineer Howard, but
excluding Forrest City employees, production and maintenance em-
ployees, office clerical employees, all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Ryder Tank Lines, Inc. and Quenton Reese, Gordon M. Treadwell,
and Manard E. Bough . Cases Nos. 11-CA-1649-1-2-3. Febru-
ary 8, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labon practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in 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 and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,
135 NLRB No. 95.