Central Steel Tube Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In- the Matter of CENTRAL STEEL: TUBE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL 1623
Case No. C-2526.-Decided March 26; 1943
Jurisdiction : ordnance manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor , Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogating employees • about union
activity ; threatening, to shut down operations if union organization were suc-
cessful ; seeking to induce employees to refrain from attending a union meeting ;
supervisory anti-union statements and threats of reprisal.
Dascrimmation: discharge of three employees followed by settlement after filing
of charges considered together with discharge of three other employees, two
of them for union membership and activity and one for concerted and collective
activity for purpose of mutual aid ; allegation of discriminatory demotion,
dismissed.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement of three employees with back pay; employer
ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices. -
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 12, 1943, the Trial Examiner 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 out in the copy of the Intermediate Report
.attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
`Intermediate Report and briefs in support of the exceptions. None of
the parties requested oral argument before the Board.. The Board has
,considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds
,that no prejudicial error was- committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, 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 the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Central Steel Tube- Company,
48 N. L. R B , No. 74.
604
CENTRAL STEEL- TUBE, COMPANY,': .605
Clinton, 'Iowa, and its officers, !agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Iriternational•Association of.Ma-
chinists, Local 1623, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of its employees or
any term or condition of their employment;
(b) 'In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employeesFin the.exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
john, or,assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which-the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act : -
(a) Offer to Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Ham-
mond immediate and full reinstatement to their' former or substanti-
ally equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges;
(b) Make, whole. Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd
Hammond for any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, by payment to each-of them of a sum of money equal
to the amount, which each normally would have earned as wages dur-
ing the period from the date of the discrimination against him to the
date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such period ;
(c) Immediately post and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days, in conspicuous places throughout the plant at
Clinton, Iowa, notices stating (1) that it will not engage in the con-
duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a)
and (b) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the
respondent's employees are free to remain or become members of
International'- Association of Machinists,' Local 1623, or any • other
labor organization of its employees;
(d) Notify'the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
'writing within ten (10) days-from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AN D IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: the complaint, insofar as' it al-
leges discrimination. in regard, to the hire and tenure of employment
of Lester Schutte, be, and hereby is,dismissed.
'606 IYECISIONS'i OF' NATIONAL 1'ABO1 RELATIONS BOARD
= INTERMEDIATE REPORT '
Mr. Stephen .M. Reynolds and Mr. Francis X. Hegesen for the Board.
Mr. Edward C Halbach , of Clinton , Iowa, and Mr. Wayne G. Cook, 'of Daven-
port, -Iowa, for the respondent.
Mr. Earl P. Hogan , of Rock Island, Ill., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF -CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on December 17: 1942, by International
Association of Machinists , Local 1623, a labor organization herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its
Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region ( Minneapolis , Minnesota ), issued
its complaint , dated December 23, 1942, against . Central Steel Tube Company,
Clinton, Iowa , herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1). and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint and notices of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
respondent and, the Union.
In respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the respondent ( a) from and after January 1, 1941, interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the' Act by a variety of acts including they; issuance of warnings
against union membership and activity ,, questioning employees in regard to such
membership and activity , and making derogatory and disparaging statements in
regard to unions and union leaders ; ( b) on, February 15, 1941, discharged
Henry Oltman' ; on May 7, 1941, discharged Alvin H. Knutsen and Tony C:
Thielen ; ' on'May 10, 1942 , discharged Milton J Winship ; on - November 17, 1942,
discharged 'Evart Carrier and Lloyd - Hammond ; and on November 30, 1942,
transferred Lester Schutte to a less desirable and less remunerative position
because of the union membership and activity of these employees; and (c) by
the foregoing conduct violated Section 8 , ( 1) and (3) of the Act.
On ' January ' 4, 1943, the respondent f̀iled an answer in which it denied
engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
. Pursuant to notice , a hearing -was held from January 11 through 14, 1943,
at Clinton , Iowa,. before the undersigned , Samuel Edes, the Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the , Chief Trial Examiner' The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel , and the Union by a representative . All parties
participated in the hearing and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard,
to examine ' and cross -examine withesses , and to introduce evidence bearing
on the - issues. At the close - of the Board 's case, the undersigned, without
objection , granted a motion by counsel for the Board - , to conform the complaint
to the -proof adduced at - the. hearing in minor particulars. At the conclusion
of the hearing , oral argument was had on the record before the undersigned.
On February 8, 1943, the respondent filed a - brief ' with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes ' the following:
'On January 6, 1943, the respondent filed a motion with the Regional Director for a
continuance of the hearing for 30 days from January 11,•1943. The motion was denied.
It was not renewed at the hearing.
;,CENTRAL" STEEL; TUBE COMPANY „' - r 607
' I - FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Iowa corporation having its principal office and place'
of business in Clinton, Iowa, is engaged in the manufacture of gun mounts and
other war materials for the armed forces of the United States. During the
year 1942, all of the principal raw materials used by the respondent, valued
at approximately $1,000,000, were purchased and shipped to its Clinton plant
from points outside the State of Iowa. In the same period, approximately'
95 percent of the finished products of the respondent, having a total value of
approximately $2,500,000, were sold, and shipped by the respondent to points'
outside the State of Iowa.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce" within the meaning
of the Act. '
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Local 1623, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Discrimination
1. Henry Oltman
.
Henry Oilman 'was employed by the respondent in February 1939 as a
grinding machine helper. Thereafter he became an operator of that machine,
a position which he occupied until February 15, 1941, when he was'discharged
Prior to -his discharge, in December 1940, Oltman became interested in the
formation ' of -a labor organization among the employees at the respondent's
plant.' In the latter part of that month, Oltman visited the regional head-
quarters of the Union at Rock Island, Illinois, to obtain information regarding'
the establishment of a local union at the plant. Thereafter, he corresponded
With, Earl Hogan, a regional representative of the Union, and discussed the'
proposed organization with various of the employees including Alvin' H.
Knutsen and Tony C. Thielen. A number of the remployees indicated their
interest in the proposal. Accordingly, Oltman made arrangements' to hold
a meeting on the night of February 15, 1941. Oltman and Knutsen took
leading parts in soliciting employees to attend ; they discussed the meeting at
the plant during lunch periods and spoke to employees after working hours at
their homes.
On February 14, the night before the scheduled meeting, Oltman and Knutsen,
in the course of visiting employees at their homes, stopped off at a local tavern.
While there, Gene Holmes, foreman of the department in which` Oltman worked,
came in and, as Holmes-admitted at the hearing, addressed the two as "union
organizers" 2 Oltman, and Knutsen asked Holmes what he -thought of union
organization. Holmes replied that he was ,'definitely against it". When he
was told of the union meeting arranged for the following night, Holmes, in'
Z IIolnies-first' testified that lie knew the two were ehgagiiig in organizational activity
because they had told him so at"the tavern; immediately thereafter he admitted that lie
obtained his information prior 'thereto fiom "rumors" and'"small talk" among the em-
ployees at'the plant. ' ' :
608 DECISIONS- 'OF - NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
addition , as he testified , offered 'to. bet the ' two men $10 that they would be
discharged immediately if he advised Depue 3 of their activity.
The following day Clark A. 'Depue III; superintendent of the plant, came out
on the floor and, handing Oltman his check in open view of other, workers, told
him that he was, discharged. Oltinan testified that when he asked Depue III
the reason for this,action, Depue III replied that there had been complaints
that Oltman had been smoking in the toilet room in violation of a plant rule.
Oltman told Depue III that he had not engaged in such ,conduct, but Depue IIII
merely walked away. At the hearing, Depue III testified that he had, received
complaints from foremen that Oltman violated the rule against smoking.
However, he admitted that he did not discharge Oltman for that reason. That
offense, Depue III testified, called only for a'1 to 3 day lay-off.4 According to*
Depue III, he discharged 0ltman for "general inefficiency and not performing
his job". This , Depue III testified , consisted in the main of Oltman's persistence
in leaving his machine to talk to other employees to, the neglect of'hia work.
`Depue III stated that he knew this from personal observation and from the fact
that Henry Wenzel, foreman of the automatic machine department, had reported
to him about 3 months before the discharge that Oltman's work was unsatisfac
tory. The undersigned does not credit the testimony of Depue III in this regard.
The record establishes that Wenzel did not work in Oltman's department. Indeed,
Holmes, who was Oltman's forman and best qualified to judge Oltman, testified
that "There wasn't any reason why I should 'have him removed".' He further
testified that he "probably should have" intervened in Oltman's behalf but that he
"just let it ride". -
In view of the failure of the reason advanced by Depue III to conform with
the facts, there remains only as the reason for' the discharge the fact that
Oltman was the leading spirit in the effort to establish a labor organization
at the respondent's plant. The day Oltman was discharged, Depue III called
Knutson into his office and advised him that he "didn't give [Oltman ] a chance
to talk" but that he was going'to give Knutsen a chance. Depue then asked.
Knutsen how he.felt about the Union . Knutsen stated that he favored the
Union "100 percent." Depue replied that "if the union would go in ... it would
close . the place , down . .." Depue III also advised Knutsen that if he, re-
frained from.attending the organizational meeting that night, Depue III would
"take care" of Knutsen's wage rate. -Depue denied having such conversation
with Knutsen. ." Depue III was , an unimpressive witness ; the undersigned does
not credit his denial. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Hogan, the
Union's representative, C. A. Depue, president of the respondent, advised him,
following Oltman's,discharge that the respondent "didn't want a union in the
plant" and "saw no reason why [its] employees should belong to an outside
organization and pay, dues in that organization ". Holmes had indicated only
the night before the discharge that- the discovery of union activity would be
met by dismissal. Although Depue III testified he had no knowledge of any-
union , activity prior to the time he discharged Oltman, the circumstances clearly
3 C. A. Depue was president of the respondent . Clark A. Depue III, his son, was super-
intendent of the plant . It is not clear whether Holmes ' statement referred to the older
or the younger,Depue.
4 The undersigned does not credit the testimony that Oltman violated the no-smoking,
rule. Had Oltman done so, . there would be no reason for, not invoking the lay -off penalty
against him , as had been the case when other employees had violated the rule . Depue III
admitted that the prescribed penalty had never been invoked against Oltnran.
'Holmes testified that Depue had told him that Oltman "wasn't producing at night".
However, the fact is that Oltman did not work nights ; his shift was from 8 a m. to 4 p. m.
1
CENTRAL STEEL TUBE COMPANY 609
point to, the contrary. Holmes admitted that Oltman's connection with a union
movement was a matter of common talk among the workers at the plant. ' Fur-
ther, Depue III testified that on the day of the discharge he had Oltman "under
rather close observation". Yet no valid reason appears why, Depue III.should
have chosen that particular day to keep unusual watch over Oltman. Depue
III advanced none. In the view of the undersigned, this action on the part of
Depue III can, in all the circumstances, be laid only to an effort by Depue III
to find some excuse upon which to base the dismissal prior to the union' meeting
scheduled for that night.
In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that, in discharging Henry
Oltman on February 15, 1941, the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of Henry Oltman, thereby discouraging membership in the Union'
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Alvin H. Knutsen and Tony C. Thielen
Alvin H. Knutsen was, employed by the, respondent shortly prior to May 1940.
Tony C Thielen was employed in September 1940. Both worked in the bending
department of the plant. Knutsen operated a machine ; Thielen was his helper.
Both were laid off on May 7, 1941. They were recalled on May 12, and finally
discharged on May 13, 1941.
As indicated above, Knutsen and Thielen were active in the movement to form
a union.prior to the discharge of Oltman. Their efforts did not thereafter. abate.,
The initial meeting to -form a union, scheduled for February 15, was held. Dis-
regarding the effort of Depue III, found above, to induce Knutsen to stay away,
Knutsen attended that meeting That night Knutsen, Thielen, and Oltman were
selected as a committee of three to forward union organization at the plant: The
following day, Knutsen testified, he was approached by William Greaves, foreman,
of the welding department, who advised him that he "better leave the damn union
alone and go on about [his] work and forget about it". At the hearing, Greaves
denied. having any such conversation with Knutsen. The undersigned, in all the,
circumstances, does not credit Greaves' denial, and finds that Greaves made the
statement to Knutsen in terms substantially as testified to by Knutsen. Several,
days after the February 15 meeting, Thielen, while driving home from work with
Peter Andresen, foreman of the polishing department, and another employee,
started to discuss the formation of a union. Andresen declared that "it wouldn't
do any good" to attempt such a project' because "Depue didn't want any union"."
Following the meeting also, Depue III told Knutsen, in sum, that he would
"suffer" for having attended. Despite these clear indications of management
opposition, Knutsen and Thielen openly continued their efforts to advance the
Union. Meetings continued to be held and membership applications solicited.
Sometime following the middle of April 1941, they distributed copies of the
Dubuque Leader, a union publication, in front of the plant. These copies publi-
cized the payment by the respondent of a sum of money to Oltman in settlement of
charges filed with the Board arising out of his dismissal.
On May 7, 1941, Knutsen and Thielen were laid ;off Hogan, the union repre-
sentative, immediately called on President Depue and requested that the.men be
reinstated. Depue testified that he was "very much burned up"'about this. On
May 12 the men'were recalled. The following day, however, they were finally
discharged. The reasons advanced by the respondent's witnesses for the lay-off
6 This conversation is based upon the testimony of Thielen. It was not contradicted at
the hearing.
610, DECISIONS, OF NAfT'IONAL,LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
and subsequent discharge of Knu,tsen and Thielen were contradictory and un-
convincing. Clarence Peterson, their foreman, testified that when Knutsen first
at'arted to work for him, a year prior to the dismissal , he was "a good man", but
that as time went by Knutsen "seemed to just complain" and was "always just
complaining and crabbing" and "never was satisfied.with anything there was to
do". When asked to particularize as to the matters about which Knutsen com-
plained, Peterson testified that Knutsen complained "he didn't get enough money",
that "the work was too hard", that "he had some trouble, or something, with hi,s
wife," and "everything you could think of". In regard to Thielen, Petersen testi-_
fled that Thielen did not make any complaints. He added, however, that the
trouble with Thielen was that Thielen would not follow his instructions but,,
instead, would always €1o what Knutsen told him. On cross-examination , Petersen
left the subject of Knutsen's complaints, and testified that Knutsen's deficiency as
a worker lay in the fact that he would disobey orders and would leave his machine
to smoke and visit with other workmen. As a result of such conduct by both
Knutsen and Thielen, according to Petersen, production suffered. Petersen, how-
ever, could remember only one instance when Thielen failed to follow his orders.
On that occasion, Petersen testified, both Knutsen and Thielen refused to work
because it was too hot that day. Curiously, however, Petersen stated that he did
not discipline the men or report them to Depue III, the plant superintendent, for
so `flagrant a violation of orders. In addition to the above, Petersen sought to
have it appear that Knutsen and Thielen were inefficient workmen. He'testified
that at times they failed to set up their machine properly so that a considerable
amount of scrap and spoilage resulted The fact, however, is that Thielen was
merely a helper; it'was not his job to set up the machine. Moreover, in regard to
the only improper set-up that Petersen could recall, Petersen admitted that he
was present at the time and that it was his duty to assist in setting up the machine.
In' any event, when the attention of Depue III was called to this incident, he
testified that he "did not criticize [Knutsen] for that". Further, Petersen could
not consistently testify as to what period Knutsen and Thielen first appeared
as unsatisfactory workers At one point he testified that for "probably the first
year" Knutsen was satisfactory; since Knutsen was with the respondent only
a little more than a year, this would mean that Knutsen was not unsatisfactory
until shortly before his discharge. At another point, Petersen testified that it was
not until after Knutsen and Thielen had been with the respondent six months
that they became unsatisfactory. At still another point, he testified that Thielen
emulated Knutsen "from the time he came in". Petersen testified that he re-
peatedly warned Knutsen and Thielen throughout their employment and that,
in addition, he reported their conduct to Depue III.
The respondent adduced additional testimony to corroborate that of Petersen.
Willard Grimsley, works manager, testified that Knutsen was "more or less a
troublemaker" because he was dissatisfied with the wages he was earning
In addition, Grimsley testified that he saw Knutsen wandering about the plant
away from his normal duties on "many" occasions and that on several occasions
he received complaints from customers in regard to materials upon which Knut-
sen and Thielen had worked. Grimsley, however, could not clearly testify whether
Foreman Petersen had not also worked on the materials as to which complaints
were registered. Henry Neubauer,, a punch press operator in another depart-
ment, testified that nearly every day over a period of 2 or 3 months Knutsen
would visit his machine as often as three or four times a day. In addition, he
testified that he saw Knutsen visiting with other workmen nearly every day -
Yet Neubauer testified that he complained to no,one about Knutsen's visiting with
him and that he saw, nothing unusual about Knutsen's visits with others. More-i
CENTRAL STEEL, TUBE COMPANY. 611
over, Petersen had testified that he saw Knutsen away -from his work only five
or six, times in the total period of his employment. Thielen; according to Neu-
bauer, was with Knutsen only "very seldom". Henry Wenzel, at the time fore-
man of the automatic machine department, testified that he complained to
Petersen and Depue III that Knutsen was talking to his men about wages and
was stirring up dissatisfaction In addition, Wenzel testified that on several
occasions Knutsen asked his advice in regard to his work. Wenzel considered
that Knutsen thereby was going over the head of his foreman, Petersen. "He
admitted, however, that Petersen never indicated that this action was improper.
Depue•III testified that Knutsen and Thielen failed to follow Petersen's instruc-
tions and that Petersen spoke to him about their poor production from 20 to 25
times in the period of their employment, although Petersen, himself, had testified
that he registered complaints with Depue III only 5 or 6 times. Indeed, Depue III
testified that prior to February 15 he had only had complaints about Knutsen-
and Thielen "a couple of times." Prior to February 15, the day of the first
meeting of the Union, Depue III, testified, Knutsen and Thielen had good records
as employees.
The undersigned cannot credit the testimony adduced by the respondent to
establish that Knutsen and Thielen were unsatisfactory employees. The re-
spondent's witnesses, the record shows, were clearly seeking to establish a case
of gross insubordination, misconduct, and inefficiency on the part of Knutsen
and Thielen without regard to fact. , If the facts were as the witnesses sought
to make them out at the hearing, no reason would appear why the two employees
were retained over so long a period, without any disciplinary action by the,
respondent. The normal facts of experience alone require rejection of the
testimony.,
Nor did the respondent itself attribute the lay off of May 7 to the poor records
of the men. According to the respondent, Knutsen and Thielen were laid off
on that date because work in the bending department was running low at the
time When an additional order for such work came in shortly-after the layoff,
the two men were recalled and worked on May 12 and 13. When they returned
to work, Petersen admitted that he and Depue III were "laying for them".
On May 13, the second day of their return, Petersen, according to his testimony,
found them away from their job and immediately reported them to Depue III.
Depue III testified that he personally observed the two away from their machine
and that he reported this fact to President Depue who instructed that they be
sent to him. President Depue testified that he, too, saw Knutsen and, Thielen
loafing that day. Depue, however, did not appear to be overly concerned with'
that fact. According to his testimony, Knutsen had told him that morning that
his birth certificate was on file at the local court house. Depue investigated, but
found it was not on file. Accordingly, he immediately called the Federal Bureau
of Investigation at Des Moines. That afternoon, according to Depue, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation returned his call and advised him that there was no
record of Knutsen's birth in Iowa. Depue testified that the reason for his concern
over' Knutsen's birth certificate was that it was necessary for him to have it to
enable him to determine whether to transfer Knutsen to defense work in the
plant, since Knutsen's regular work was being discontinued. The F. t. .1. report
added ' to Knutsen's inefficiency' caused Depue, according to his testimony, to-
dismiss, Knutsen. As concerns Thielen, Depue testified that he had nothing
against Thieleff except that he was weak and led by Knutsen. Accordingly,
Thielen was also dismissed- But for the F. B. I. report, it appears clear from
Depue's testimony, Knutsen would have been retained by transfer to the re-
spondent's.defense work division. Otherwise no reason would appear for Depue's
521247-43-vol. 48-40
0
612 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL- LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
interest' in Knutsen's birth record. Unlike President Depue, Plant Superintendent
Depue III attributed the failure - to transfer Knutsen entirely' to the latter's
"attitude" toward his work. Depue III testified, in regard to Thielen, that
Thielen was not transferred because he had not been too careful a worker when
first employed by the respondent in the automatic machine department.
The undersigned -has already found, above; that no reliance may be placed
upon- the claim of the respondent that Knutsen and -Thielen were unsatisfac-'
tory employees. The undersigned further finds that the respondent's concern
with Knutsen's nativity was prompted- by a desire to rid itself of Knutsen, and
with him Thielen, because of the continued efforts of these employees on behalf
of the Union. Immediately prior to Depue's call to the F. B^ I., Depue, as
Knutsen testified, complained to Knutsen about the fact that Knutsen and Thie-
len had brought their lay-off of May 7,to the attention of the Board. Further,
Depue told Knutsen that the respondent treated its employees well and he did
not know "why in hell a union should come in". Depue denied - having such
conversation with Knutsen. The undersigned does not credit Depue's denial.
Nor does the undersigned credit Depue's testimony that Depue was informed
by the 'F. B. I. prior to'the discharge that Knutsen's record of birth was not
known to it. Had that been so, no reason would appear why, as the record
shows, a further inquiry in the matter should have been addressed to the F. B. I.
by the respondent as late as September 1941. The record indisputably estab-
lishes that Knutsen in fact was a native American citizen.
In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that in discharging Alvin H.
Knutsen and Tony C. Thielen on May 13; 1941, the respondent discriminated
in regard to the hire and tenure of Knutsen and Thielen, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing-its-em-
ployees in the exercise of the'rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Milton J. Winchip
Milton J. Winchip was employed by the respondent in the early part of April
1942 as a precision inspector. On May 10, 1942, Winchip was discharged. Fol-
lowing the discharges of Oilman, Knutsen, and Thielen the preceding year,
efforts to form, a labor organization at the plant had lapsed. Shortly after
Winchip was employed by the respondent, there was, as Winchip testified, con-
siderable dissatisfaction among the inspectors in regard to wages. No effort,
was made to form any organization at this time. There was, however, con-
siderable discussion among the employees as to what action should be taken -
to, .better, their conditions. Various employees believed that some collective
showing should be made. It was suggested to Winchip that the employees band
together and go on strike. Winchip did not favor this suggestion! Winchip
believed that a sounder course, suggested by one of the employees, would be to
write a letter to the respondent, signed by all of the workers in the department,
demanding a wage increase. Winchip approached many of the employees on
this proposal. Many of them favored the idea, others weie hesitant, others, re-
fused to have anything to do with it. Winchip's activity in this regard be-
came known ,to, the respondent. - Three or four days before Winchip was dis-
missed, Charles Holsinger, a fellow employee,. advised Henry Wenzel, who
was then chief inspector, that Winchip was constantly discussing wage rates
with the men. Wenzel testified that he personally observed Winchip talking
to his fellow workers.
4 There was some testimony that Winchip suggested a strike or - slowdown by the em-
ployees. ' Winchip denied this. ' The undersigned credits his testimony in this aegard.
CENTRAI, STEEI^ TUBE' COMPANY 613
- In addition to his activity among the men, Winchip,,the record establishes,
repeatedly requested Wenzel and Berg,- another supervisory official, for, an
individual increase in his rate of pay. Each, according to Winchip, promised
that the increase would be granted if the other approved. Finally, the rec-
ord establishes, on May 10, Winchip, 'finding Wenzel and Berg -together, de-
manded that he be given an increase without further delay. Otherwise, Win-
chip indicated he would' quit. Shortly thereafter, according to Winchip, Wen-
zel called him aside and told him that the management had decided to dispense
with his services. Wenzel further asserted that Winchip was "agitating"
among the men and "getting them all keyed up and making them dissatisfied,"
and that, "We don't believe in unionism, or any part of the union around here.
We don't want it around here at all." Wenzel denied making any such state-
ments to Winchip. The undersigned does not credit his denial. According to
Wenzel, Winchip's employment was terminated because he did not believe that
Winchip merited an increase. But according to Holsinger, who testified on be-
half of the respondent, Wenzel had told him only 3 or 4 days before the dismissal
that he was trying to effect an increase for several of the men including Winchip.
Further, in a conversation with Robert Hubbard, active in union circles in
Clinton, following Winchip's discharge, Wenzel advised Hubbard that he had
discharged Winchip because Winchip had,been "agitating trouble" in the plant
by trying to get fellow workers to sign a paper. Wenzel denied making this
admission to'Hubbard The undersigned does not credit the denial. At 'the
hearing Wenzel admitted that he was'not pleased when lie found that Winchip
had been talking to other employees about a wage increase. Wenzel testified
that he did not believe employees should discuss such matters among themselves
"to the extent:of soliciting or,anything like that * * , *." ' He stated, "If they
want to talk wages, I would be glad to talk to them myself " -
The evidence amply shows, and the undersigned finds, that Winchip was
not discharged because of any -failure on the part of the respondent to meet
his demand for a wage increase, but solely because he was seeking to induce
others to engage in concerted and collective action with him for the purpose
of improving their,wage conditions. In the view of the undersigned, it is no
answer, as claimed by the respondent in its brief, that Winchip was not a
member of a labor organization or engaged in formal union activity. The Act
extends full protection against discrimination directed toward all concerted
activities for the improvement ,of working conditions whether or not part of
a movement which has reached the stage of formal organization.
In all the ^ circumstances', . the - undersigned finds that in, dismissing Milton
J. Winchip on May 10, 1942, the respondent discriminated in regard' to the
hire and tenure of employment of Winchip, thereby discouraging' concerted
and collective activities among its employees for the purpose of mutual aid
and protection, and interfering with, restraining, and coerced its, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. Evart Carrier
Evart Carrier was employed by the respondent in April 1941. In October
1942, Carrier became interested in -establishing a local of the 'Union at the
plant. , At that time he secured and distributed some membership application
cards among the employees. On November 17, 1942, Carrier secured some
additional' 35 to 40 such cards. He gave Lloyd Hammond, a fellow employee,
some of these cards asking him to distribute them. In addition, Carrier-gave
about a dozen cards to Taylor, employed in the respondent's 'guard house.
That day , Carrier was discharged.
1
614 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL , LABORR., RELATIONS BOARD
Aimar Petersen , who was Carrier's immediate superior , testified that, Car-
rier was constantly dissatisfied with his job . On the night of the discharge,
Petersen testified , Carrier was again "doing a little griping ." Accordingly,
Petersen reported Carrier to A. L. Lafferty , foreman of that shift. By his
own testimony , however, Petersen did not advise Lafferty that Carrier was
complaining. He told Lafferty that Carrier was unable to perform his- work ;
that Carrier had asked him about the-dimensions of a certain part upon which
he was working and that, since Carrier should have known about this, he
"got disgusted" and told Lafferty that he-had no work which Carrier could
capably perform Without regard for consistency, Petersen at another point
testified that Carrier 's work was "okay," but that Carrier consistently failed
to produce as much work as of Lafferty testified that Petersen com-
plained to him about Carrier ' on the night of, the discharge ; he could not re-
member what the substance of the complaint was. He believed , at the time,
however, that because of the accumulation of complaints against Carrier this
would be a propitious time to dismiss him. According to Lafferty , Carrier was
a dissatisfied worker who constantly complained about the work assigned him.
In addition , on one occasion , Lafferty testified , Petersen had told him' he did
not think that Carrier was producing as much work as he should . Petersen
and Lafferty testified ' that Carrier 's shortcomings were discussed with Sikkd
Vogel, superintendent . Vogel ' s testimony does not accord with that of Petersen
and Lafferty . Although they testified that Carrier was constantly complaining
about his work, Vogel testified that after Carrier was transferred away froui
"wet work" which caused him serious skin irritation , the only reports that
came to him were that Carrier was not producing enough work . Little re-,
liance, however , may ,be placed upon this claim. Since Lafferty had been told'
by Petersen on only ' one occasion . that Carrier 's production was below that-
required , it is difficult to explain why, as Vogel testified ,. Lafferty should have
repeatedly made complaints to him on this score. Indeed Lafferty testified that
he spoke to Vogel about Carrier "maybe once , maybe twice ." Further, both
Petersen and Vogel testified that no records were kept . of Carrier 's produc-
tion. Vogel first also so testified . Thereafter, Vogel admitted that a record of
production was made on each of ,the employees ' time cards and that these cards,,
kept in the respondent 's office, would show the comparative production figures
of the employees The cards, however , were not produced at the hearing.
The testimony of the respondent's witnesses is, in the view of the undersigned,
unworthy of credit . As in the cases of Knutsen and Thielen , discussed above,,
it plainly reveals a deliberate effort to manufacture,a case against the employee
involved. -
Carrier, on the other hand, appeared a- reliable witness. He admitted that.
when first assigned to do "wet work ," il. e. work on machines requiring the use
of oils, he complained because the work caused the eruption of boils. After he
was transferred , however, he testified , he made no further complaint . In addi-,
tion, he denied that his production rate was - below that of others or that any
complaints had ever been made to him in this regard by any of his superiors.
Indeed, the respondent did not attempt to refute Carrier's statement of his pro-
duction figures , as nearly as he could recall them at the hearing, which compared
very favorably with the production of other fellow workers.
The reason for Carrier 's discharge lies;_in the view of the undersigned, in the
testimony of Carrier as to what 'occurred at the time of his dismissal :, . According.
to Carrier , Lafferty at the time of the discharge literrogated , him as to whether
anyone in addition to him and Hammond were distributing union membership ti
r
CENTRAL- STEEL TUBE'-COMPANY 615
caids' and told him, "We' don't want no 'damn union' out here."- Immediately
--thereafter',- Carrier asked Petersen-:whetlier"his work 'had'notf been"satisfactory.
Petersen replied that i(had been "more than satisfactory" but wanted to know
wliat he-had been doing in attempting to organize a`union - Lafferty and Petersen
denied making such statements to Carrier."' The` undersigned does- not credit
their denials" ' - '
In- all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the'responderit' in discharg-
ing Evart' Carrier on November 17, 1942, discriminated in - regard to the hire
and tenure of Carrier, thereby 'discouraging membership in the Union `and `inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercmggits employees in the exercise of, the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
5 Lloyd 'Hammond -
Lloyd Hammond was employed by the respondent in September 1941. From
that time until about August 1942 Hammond ` for the most part operated a drill
press. . Thereafter ,v until his discharge on November 17, 1942, Hammond worked
in the grinding department . As indicated above, Hammond ' on the day of his
discharge received a 'number . of membership application cards from Evart Carrier.
Hammond distributed the cards that night among some 5 to 10 fellow employees,
soliciting them to sign. In short order , Hammond, ,like Carrier,, was dismissed
from the respondent ' s employ.
Hammond 's case parallels that of Carrier in striking respects . As in the
case of Carrier, the respondent introduced considerable testimony directed
-toward establishing that Hammond was an unsatisfactory workman. In the
period ending August 1942 , while Hammond operated a drill press , Foreman
Lafferty testified that Hammond would be away'from his machine "every day."
'However, Warren Kelley , who was Hammond 's immediate superior , although
patently seeking to corroborate Lafferty, admitted that in this period Hammond
found his work "quite easy," and would leave his machine only when his
production equalled that of his fellow workmen . Further, Kelly admitted
that, in terms of skill, Hammond was an "adept workman " and had "very
little breakage." In the period between August 1942 and the time of Hammond's
discharge, when ' he worked in the grinding department ; the respondent's wit-
nesses further sought to have it appear that Hammond was both an ' inefflcient
and an unproductive workman. Their testimony , however; is not convincing.
For all of the testimony to the contrary , Hammond 's immediate superior , Virtus
Struve, testified that although ' there - were three or four complaints that tools
were not properly sharpened , there was no way of telling whether 'the- tools
complained of had been sharpened by Hammond - or by some other employee.
Further, although Struve testified that "several" 'times there had been- com-
plaints by the shift following the one - on which Hammond worked that' not
enough cutters had been -sharpened , Struve admitted that Hammond for the
most part worked on taps and that he took '' these complaints up, not with
Hammond, but with Holdgraver , an employee who worked ' on Hammond 's shift.
Moreover, Struve testified that he did ' not know ' the reason for Hammond's
'discharge . Lafferty who effected - Hammond's discharge • testified that it was
prompted by the fact that on that day he' saw Hammond in the tool room away
from his machine and that this was a ' frequent- occurrence which he could no
longer tolerate . Yet, Lafferty admitted that it was "probably " not improper
for Hammond to be in the'tool room "at that particular time"
The record , in the view of the undersigned ; - amply establishes that the
respondent seized upon the first available pretext to rid itself of Hammond
616 DECISIONS -OF .NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
for the reason, in fact, that he,was engaging -in an, effort to revive the. Union-
at the plant. The day following the discharge, Hammond, upon inquiry of
.Stephen Emrick, tool supervisor, was, .told that "Lafferty. has turned you in
for everything he can think,of." That day, too, Emrick told Holdgraver, "It's
too bad Hamniond got into trouble last night." Emrick asked Holdgraver
whether he had seen any of the union cards. When Holdgraver replied that
he had seen one but had not signed it, Emrick stated,- "It is a, good thing you
didn't, * * *. Hammond came out this morning and- played like he was
dumb ; he didn't know what he was canned for. I went over to the office to
find out and when I found out what it was for,,I couldn't do anything about
it." Emrick further stated, Holdgraver `testified, ,that the discharge was for
"passing out cards * * *." The discharge of Hammond and Carrier, the
only two employees active -in renewing the movement to establish the Union,
4t the first indication that such an effort was being attempted cannot be laid,
in the circumstances disclosed by.the record, to the disinterested operation of
coincidence.
In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the respondent in dis-
charging Lloyd Hammond on November 17, 1942, discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of Hammond, thereby 'discouraging membership' in, the
Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Alleged discrimination in regard to Lester Schutte
Lester Schutte was employed by the respondent in February 1941. .He bper-
ated one of the respondent's single spindle automatic screw machines. In July
1942 he was transferred to a six spindle automatic machine, then recently
purchased by the respondent: On November -17, 1942, Lloyd Hammond gave
Schutte some union membership application cards. Schutte. distributed two or
,three of the cards among employees during the lunch period that night. He did
not, however, as he testified, discuss the matter with any of. the 'employees.
On Saturday,, November 28, a dovetail • tool broke on Schutte's machine.
Schutte left a note on the machine to advise the operator on the following shift,
which commenced Monday, November 30, of that fact. When Schutte returned
to work the next Monday, he was advised by his superiors that he was to be
transferred to the single spindle machine department. Schutte testified that he
,advised his superiors he would not return to the single spindle machine, but
would quit. They refused to reconsider their judgment. Accordingly, Schutte
,quit his employment. -
Considerable conflicting testimony wasp adduced at the bearing bearing on
-whether the tool breakage on this and on one or two prior occasions was due
to Schutte's improper handling of the machine. It is undisputed that as a result
,of the breakage',the-machine was.'out• of operation-for-approximately, 3 days: "The
conflict as,to whether Schutte was at, fault does not, in the view of the under-
signed,' require resolution. According to Schutte, he objected to being re-
moved from the six spindle machine, only because it involved a reduction in pay
from 80 to 72 cents an hour. Schutte testified that M• H Kramer, personnel
manager, so advised him Kramer denied so advising Schutte. • The under-
signed does not credit Schutte's testimony in this regard. • Schutte admitted
,that Gene Holmes, his immediate superior, made no statement to him in regard
to a wage reduction. at the time Holmes advised him of the transfer. The un-
^contradicted • testimony of Vogel, superintendent, -who also spoke, to Schutte
about-the matter, was that there was no discussion of a wage reduction. The
revord otherwise amply indicates that the respondent's uniform policy was not to
I
CENTRAL ..STEEL TUBE COMPANiY
,reduce wages -in such situations, that the position to which the respondent
intended to, transfer Schutte would have paid at least as much as he was then
earning, and that after further experience by Schutte on the single spindle
machines the respondent intended to return Schutte to the six spindle machine.
In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the respondent's pro-
posed transfer of Schutte was not a' transfer to a ,less desirable and less re-
munerative position. The undersigned further finds that, absent any substantial
basis, for holding that the proposed transfer involved less desirable and less
.remunerative employment, the respondent was not in the circumstances actuated
by any purpose of reprisal on account of Schutte's union activity.
C. Interference, restraint, and, coercion
As' found 'ab'ove, Gene Holmes, foreman; indicated to Oltman and Knutsen in
February 1941 that the respondent was opposed to union organization and would
meet conduct of such kind by reprisals. In addition it has been found above
that in February 1941 Depue III, superintendent, interrogated Knutsen in regard
to union organization, threatened that the respondent would shut down opera-
tions if such organization was successful, sought to induce Knutsen to refrain
-from attending a union meeting, and thereafter advised'Knutsen that he would
stiffer for having attended ; that Peter Andresen, foreman,- and William Greaves,
also a foreman, in conversations with Thielen and Knutsen in the same month
'Indicated the hostility of the respondent to labor organizations ; 'that in May
1941 President Depue in a conversation with Knutsen further+ indicated manage-
ment opposition to such a movement ; that in May 1942 Wenzel, a' supervisor,
expressed again the, antipathy of the respondent toward collective activity ; that
in November 1942 Stephen Emrick, tool supervisor, interrogated Holdgraver
about the distribution of union application cards ;-and that the same month C. A.
Laferrty, a. supervisory- official, addressed a similar inquiry to Carrier, indi-
cating in addition that the respondent opposed the establishment of a union in
the plant. In addition. to the foregoing, the record shows, that Lafferty made
similar inquiry of Sam Davis, an employee. Lafferty so admitted,at the hearing.
The undersigned finds that by the foregoing conduct of its supervisory officials
and employees the respondent further interfered 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
The undersigned finds that'the activities of the respondent set forth in Section,
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation toy trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. -
V. THE- REMEDY'
Having found that the respondent has engaged, in certain -unfair- labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of, the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom' and take certain affirmative action which the under-
signed finds'will effectuate the policies of,the Act.,
Since it has,been found that the respondent discriminatorily dismissed Milton
J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond, the undersigned will recommend
that the respondent offer these employees. immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions,, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of • the- said -empioyees
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
whole for any loss in earnings suffeied by them as the result 'of the respondent's
discrimination, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the amount each
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discharge of each
to the date of offers of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during that
period e
The undersigned` has also found that the'responden't discriminatorily dismissed
Henry Oltman, Alvin H. Knutsen, and Tony C. Thielen. The record shows that
.on March 26, 1941 and on October 6, 1941, agreements were entered into between
the respondent, the Union, and the Regional Director of the Board for the Eight-
eenth Region, in settlement of charges filed on account of the dismissal of these
employees. In each case the. respondent, compensated the employee for losses in
earnings suffered by them. Thielen was offered reinstatement, but refused.
fOltman and Knutsen did not desire, reinstatement. , Because the respondent,
following the successive settlement agreements, continued to disregard the Act
,by further discrimination and other interference in regard to the statutory rights
'of its employees, the undersigned finds that the agreements are not a bar to the
-findings above in connection with the discharges of Oltman, Knutsen, and Thielen.A
Since, however, the employees were made whole for their losses and did not desire
reinstatement, the undersigned will not recommend that the respondent take fur-
,ther'affirma`tive action in this regard.
The undersigned will further recommend that the complaint, insofar. as it
alleges discrimination in regard to,the hire and,tenure of employment of Lester
Schutte, be dismissed.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following: .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
'1: International Association of^ Machinists , Local 1623, is a labor organization,
'witliili'the meaning of 'Section 2 (5) of the Act • '
'2.'`By'interfering wifli, 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 (1)
'of' the' Act . - - ` - ' '
3. By discriminating iii regard'to the hire 'grid tenure of-empldyment of Henry
Oltman, Alvin H. Knutsen , Tony C. Thielen , Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier,
and Lloyd Hammond , the respondent lias engaged in and is engaging'in unfair
labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
4 ,, The foregoing unfair, -labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
,commerce , within the meaning of Section , 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Lester . Schutte. - - - ,
8 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where.than for, the, respondent, which would not have been, incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
-ica,'Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects
shall -be considered as earnings , See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 311 U. S. 7.
Matter of Corinth Hosiery Mills, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
16 N. L. R B. 414; Matter of Chambers Corporation and Allied Stove Mounters and Stove
'Processors International Union, Local No. 36 (A. F. of L.), 21 N. L. R. B. 808; Matter of
-Hawk and Buck Company, Inc. and United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 229,
25 N. L. R. B. 837, 842, 852. -
- CENTRAL STEEL TUBE COMPANY- 619
RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ; . .
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,'the
undersigned recommends that the respondent , Central Steel Tube Company, Clin-
ton, Iowa, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) 'Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists,
Local 1623, or any other labor organization of its employees , by discriminating in
iegard to the hire and tenure of its employees or any term or condition of their
employment ; •
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act ;
(a) Offer to Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond immediate
and full , reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other right 's and privileges;
(b) Make whole Milton J. Winship , Evart Carrier , and Lloyd Hammond for
any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent 's-discrimi-
nation in regard to their hire and tenure , of employment , by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which each normally would
have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination
against him to the date of the respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his
net earnings 10 during such period ;
(c) Immediately post and maintain for a period of at, least sixty ( 60) consecu-
tive days, in conspicuous places throughout the plant at Clinton, Iowa, notices
stating ( 1) that it will not engage in the conduct from which it is recom-
mended that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and ( b) of these recommen-
dations; ( 2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a)
and (b ) of these recommendations ; and (3 ) that the respondent 's employees
are-free to remain or become members of International Association of Machin-
ists, Local 1623, or any other labor organization of its employees ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken tg comply herewith.
It is further recommended that the allegation of the complaint , insofar as it
alleges discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lester
Schutte, be dismissed.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid. -
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended , effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to' Section 32 of Article 11
10 See footnote 8, supra.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building , Washing-
ton, D . C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
Dated February 12, 1943.
SAMUEL EDES,
Trial Ewanvlner.