Everglades Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 902 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of JACKSONVILLE PAPER CODIPANY, DOING BUSINESS AS
EVERGLADES PAPER COMPANY and MOTOR TRANSPORT AND ALLIED
WORKERS, LOCAL #400, CIO
Case No. C-P333.Decided January 9, 1943
Jurisdiction : paper products distributing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: statements by supervisors disparaging
union and its leaders ; interrogation concerning union membership ; attempts
to induce employees to withdraw from union
Discriminatz.on: discharge of employees because of union membership and
activity
Collective Bargaining: charges of refusal to bargain collectively, dismissed,
when union no longer represented a majority at time request to bargain
was made, and loss of majority did not result from respondent's unfair labor
practices.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and
back pay awarded.
Mr. Ralph L. Wiggins, for the Board.
Mr. Louis Kurz, of Jacksonville; Fla., for the respondent.
Mr. Marvin C. Wahl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
_AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Motor Transport and Allied Workers,
Local #400, CIO,-herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated
June 25, 1942, against Jacksonville Paper Company, doing business
as Everglades Paper Company, 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),
(3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein 'called the Act. Copies of the complaint,
together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
46 N. L. R B., No. 101.
902
JACKSONVILLE' PAPER COMPANY 903
With respect to the unfair labor practices,, the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the- respondent (1)
since on or about January 21, 1942, has refused to bargain' collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in
an appropriate unit; (2) on, or about January 26, 1942, discharged
Henry Soriano; and has since failed to reinstate him because of his
membership in and activities in behalf of the Union; 1 and (3) since
,December 1, 1941, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act by (a) disparaging the Union and the members thereof, (b)
threatening employees with discharge if they became or remained
members of the Union, (c) informing employees of its opposition to
the Union and that the,Union could not obtain any benefits for them,
(d) interrogating employees regarding their union affiliation, and (e)
attempting to induce employees to withdraw from the Union.
On or about July 5, 1942, the respondent filed an answer, denying
that it was engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act, and
denying that it had'engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 24 and 25, 1942,
at Miami, Florida, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner .duly
designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and
the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, Board's counsel
moved to conform' the pleadings to the proof. The motion was
granted without objection. During the course of the hearing, the
.Trial Examiner ruled on other motions and on objections to the ad-
mission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed-his Intermediate Report, dated
September 14, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon the re-
spondent and the Union. He found,that the respondent'had engaged
,in and was engaging in unfair labor, practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act, including the reinstatement with back pay of Henry Soriano.
On October 12, 1942, the respondent filed exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and a brief in support thereof.
1 At the hearing , Board's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, as to
Jack C Mertz, who, it was alleged, had been discriminatorily- discharged by the respondent.
The motion was granted 'uthout objection
904 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and the supporting brief and, insofar as the exceptions are
inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board- makes the following :
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Jacksonville Paper Company is a Florida corporation having its
principal office and place of business at Jacksonville, Florida. It is
engaged in the purchase, sale, and distribution of print paper, wrap-
ping paper, paper boxes, and allied products. It maintains 11
branches, 8 of which are located in Florida, 2 in Georgia, and 1 in
lAlabama. During 1940, the respondent's purchases aggregated ap-
proximately $2,140,000, of which approximately 70 percent was pur-
chased from sources outside the State of Florida and shipped directly
to the main and branch offices. During the same period the respond-
ent's total sales amounted to $3,206,041.04. The sales of the Alabama
branch amounted to $258,727.36, and those of the 2 Georgia branches
amounted to $439,350.64. Everglades Paper Company, which alone
is involved in the instant proceeding, is a trade name under which
the respondent operates its Miami branch. During 1940, the sales of
Everglades Paper Company aggregated $503,163.17. This branch
makes no sales outside the State of Florida.2
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Motor Transport and Allied Workers, Local #400, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In January 1942, the Union began to organize the 9 or 10 truck
drivers, helpers, and warehousemen then employed at the respondent's
Miami branch. On January 20 or 21, after obtaining 8 signed applica-
tion cards from among these employees, Kenneth Zink, the Union's
2 The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation entered into at the hearing by
counsel for the Board and for the respondent . While the figures herein concern 1940, the
parties stipulated that the percentage of purchases from without the State of Florida since
that year remained the same. Although , in its answer , the respondent denied that it is
engaged in commerce, it did not except to the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the respondent
is engaged in commerce , within the meaning of the Act.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY 905
business agent, called upon William Mixson, manager of the respond-
ent's Miami bri,nch, and requested Mixson to recognize the Union.'
On the same day, according to the testimony of Robert Aaron, a
truck driver employed in the Miami branch, Mixson asked Aaron if he
belonged to the Union. When Aaron replied in the affirmative, Mixson
asked him what he "expected to gain by belonging to the Union" and
then said, "Do you think you are going to make anything after paying
the union off?" Aaron further testified that during this conversation
Mixson told Aaron that a "racketeer" started the Union, that "a bunch
of racketeers" headed it, and that the employees "could not hope to
gain anything out of it." Mixson denied making the statements at-
tributed to him by Aaron. The Trial Examiner credited Aaron's
testimony and rejected Mixson's denials, finding Mixson to be a hesi-
tant and evasive witness when questioned by Board's counsel, but a
forthright witness when questioned by the respondent's counsel. We
likewise credit Aaron's testimony and find that Mixson made the
statements attributed to him.
At about this time, Richard Bauer, the respondent's shipping clerk
and a supervisory employee, asked Henry Soriano, one of the em-
ployees, whether he belonged to the Union. This incident is further
discussed below in connection with the discharge of Soriano.
Several days after his visit to Mixson, Zink, accompanied by Aaron,
called at the home of Bauer in order to try to induce him to join the
Union. Zink did not know, at that time, of Bauer's supervisory status,
and when Bauer advised him of it, Zink did not pursue his original
purpose. Zink testified that in the course of their discussion Bauer
stated that one Jack Mertz had been discharged because the respondent
considered him a "labor agitator" and that had it not been for Bauer's
intervention, the respondent would also have discharged one Joe Cham-
bers for the same reason. Zink further testified that'Bauer told them
that Mixson believed Aaron to be a "ringleader" of the union move-
ment at the plant. Aaron substantiated Zink's testimony regarding
this conversation with Bauer, but the latter denied making any of the
statements concerning Mertz, Chambers, or Aaron, which Zink and
Aaron attributed to him. The Trial Examiner credited Zink's, and
Aaron's version of the events, and we do likewise.
As soon as Zink told the respondent that its employees had formed a
labor organization, the respondent manifested its antagonism toward
the Union. Mixson immediately asked Aaron whether he belonged to
the Union and what he expected to gain from his membership. Bauer
likewise questioned Soriano about his union membership. Mixson dis-
paraged the Union's leaders, terming them "a bunch of racketeers."
In a plant as small as the respondent's'Miami branch, the respondent
3 The alleged refusal to bargain is discussed in Section B, infra.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
must have known that its manager's expressed dislike of the Union-
would soon be fully circulated among all its employees. By expressing
its attitude, it hoped to induce the employees to withdraw from the
Union. The respondent's hostility was further demonstrated by
Bauer's statement to Zink and Aaron that a former employee was dis-
missed because he was a "labor agitator" and that another employee
would have been discharged for the same reason were it not for Bauer's
timely intervention. Bauer further stated that Mixson considered
Aaron one of the "ringleaders" of the Union. Such a statement, made
in the presence of Aaron, could have none other than an intimidating
effect upon Aaron, especially in the light of the respondent's admitted
method of dealing with "labor agitators," and was contemplated to
induce Aaron to abandon the Union.
Accordingly, we find that the respondent, by disparaging the Union,
by inquiring whether its employees belonged to the Union, and by at-
tempting to induce its employees to withdraw therefrom, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed In Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged refusal to bargain
On January 20 or 21, 1942, when Zink called upon Mixson, he re-
quested Mixson to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative
of the truck drivers, helpers, and warehousemen, the Union having
obtained signed `application cards from 8 of the 9 or 10 truck drivers,
helpers, and warehousemen then employed at the, respondent's Miami
branch. Mixson questioned Zink's authority to represent the em-
ployees., When Zink offered to produce the signed authorization
cards, Mixson stated that he had no power to deal with him and sug-
gested that he take the matter up with Clifford McGehee, the re-
spondent's president, whose offices are in Jacksonville. Before leaving
Mixson, Zink told him, according to the latter's undenied testimony,
that inasmuch as they "could not get together" Zink would attempt
to enlist the assistance of the U. S. Conciliation Service of the Depart-
ment of Labor to "let one of the conciliators come in and see whether
or not he could get us together." After Zink's departure from the
office, .Mixson, according to his own testimony, telephoned McGehee,
told him that "the union man• had been in and, informed me that our
boys had gone union" and asked McGehee what he, Mixson, should
do; McGehee replied, "Refer them all up here to me." . .
Follo^ving his conversation with Mixson, Zink sent a telegram to
Dr. John R: Steelman,-head of the U. S. Conciliation Service, request-
ing the latter's assistance. Dr. Steelman notified Zink that Commis-
sioner McAllister, a conciliator who was then in Mianii, would get in
JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY 907
touch with him on the matter. On the day following Zink's visit to
Mixson, McAllister called upon Mixson, who referred him to McGehee.
Thereupon McAllister, from the officers of the Union in Miami, tele-
phoned McGehee in Jacksonville. Anthony Florio, a general organ-
izer for United Construction Workers, a division of the Union, testi-
fied that he listened to the telephone conversation between McAllister
and McGehee by means of an extension telephone in the Union's offices.
It does not appear that McGehee knew that his conversation with
McAllister was being overheard. Florio testified that McAllister re-
quested McGehee to meet with a representative of the Union and
McAllister at the respondent's Jacksonville office for the purpose of
discussing the Union's claim of representation but that McGehee re-
fused, stating, "it will blow over in a few days . . . ." McAllister
was not called as a witness.4 Zink testified that he was in the union
office during the conversation and substantiated Florio's testimony as
to what McAllister had said, admitting that he did not hear what Mc-
Gehee had said. McGehee's version of the telephone conversation was
altogether different from Florio's. ' McGehee testified that about 10
days after Mixson reported Zink's visit to him, McAllister telephoned
him, that he iuiderstood McAllister to say that he was a representative
of the National Labor Relations Board, that McAllister desired to see
McGehee in Jacksonville in order to have McGehee sign an agreement
nor a consent election, and that McGehee refused. While the Trial
Examiner discredited McGehee's version of this telephone conversa-
tion on the grounds that it was confused and implausible we are not
convinced of the soundness of his resolution of the conflict in the
evidence on this vitally material point. In the absence of the testimony
of McAllister, one of the two direct participants in the telephone con-
versation, we feel unable to resolve the conflict and, accordingly, make
no finding that there was a refusal to bargain on this date. '
• On March 23, 1942, the Union filed charges with the Board, alleging
that the respondent had refused to bargain, within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act. On March 26, the Union wrote McGehee the
following letter : -
We are again requesting you bargain collectively with the Motor
Transport and Allied Workers Local Union #400, of Miami, as
the Union represents the majority of your employees.
Please answer us` no later than April 1, 1942, setting time and
place of meeting.
4 We judicially notice the fact that \IcAlhstei's testimony was not available tb the parties
in deference to a settled policy of the Department of Labor adopted in the interest of
encouraging the fullest utilization of the services of the Commissioners of Conciliation by the
parties to labor disputes
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 1, MCGeh e replied as follows :
Your letter of March 26th is at hand. You state, We are again
requesting you bargain collectively with the Motor Transport and
Allied Workers Local Union #400," etc. We have not heretofore
been requested to bargain collectively and we, therefore, cannot
understand the inference- that such a request has heretofore been
made. Neither have we been advised who, if anyone, represents
our employees. Upon being furnished with evidence that your
organization does represent our employees, we will discuss any
matter which may be presented to us in their behalf.
The record is clear that on March 28 the Union represented only
two of the seven truck drivers, helpers, and warehousemen then em-
ployed at the respondent's Miami branch. On that date, the
other employees who had joined the Union in January were no longer
employed by the respondent, and the new employees hired to take
their places did not become members of the Union or otherwise desig-
nate it to represent them.
Following receipt of this letter, the Union filed with the Board a
petition for investigation and certification of representatives. On
one occasion thereafter, a representative of the Board called on McGe-
hee and requested him to enter into a consent election agreement, but
McGehee refused.
It is clear that on April 1, the date of the respondent's reply to the
Union's letter requesting recognition, the Union no longer represented
it majority of the employees. Since it is not shown that the Union
suffered a loss of its majority through any unfair labor practice of,
the respondent, the latter was under no duty to recognize the Union
or to bargain with it. Consequently, we are of the opinion, and find,
that the respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees at its Miami
branch, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
C. The discharge of Henry Soriano
On or about January 13, 1942, Henry Soriano was engaged as a
part-time worker by Bauer to help unload a freight car of merchan-
dise which the respondent had just received. After Soriano had
worked several hours a day for a number of days unloading the
freight car and driving a truck, Bauer assigned him to driving a
truck which had'previously been driven by Ed Thompson, an em-
ployee who left the respondent's employ at or about the time Soriano
was hired. Thompson had been a regular, full-time employee. Sori-
11
JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY 909
ano testified that on January 19, when he was assigned to Thompson's
truck, Bauer told him that if his work was satisfactory, he would
be given permanent employment as a regular, full-time truck driver.
On Soriano's time record for the week ending January 24, the re-
spondent noted, "taking the place of Ed Thompson." Bauer's testi-
mony as to whether he had a conversation with Soriano concerning
permanent employment was contradictory, as he both admitted and
denied having had such conversation. We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Bauer made an • offer of permanent employment to
Soriano, conditioned upon the satisfactory performance of his duties.
On January 20, Soriano joined the Union. He testified that on
the following day, at about the time of Zink's request of Mixson for
recognition, Bauer asked Soriano whether he,had joined the Union
and that Soriano replied in the affirmative. Bauer denied making
such an inquiry. We have already found, as• did the Trial Examiner,
that Bauer gave inconsistent testimony, and we do not credit his
denial.
On January 24, after Soriano had driven the truck for a total
of 56 hours, Bauer advised him that because "business had fallen off
a little bit . . . he was going to lay up the truck." However, the
truck was not "laid up" but was driven by another employee. There-
after, Soriano worked intermittently. On February 3, he drove The
truck for 41/2 hours. On February 7, he worked for the respondent
for the last time, unloading freight cars.
Soriano testified that, on several occasions between January 24 and
February 2, he asked Bauer to reassign him to the truck but that
Bauer ignored his requests, that he then asked Mixson if he had "a
chance to get on steady," that Mixson referred him to Bauer,' and
that finally he asked •Bauer if he "would be able to get on steady,"
and Bauer replied, "Well, you had your chance to get on steady, but,
since you joined the Union, and Mr. McAllister called Mr. Mixson
and told him that you could not be fired, well, that let you out. You
can't get back in steady." According to Mixson's undenied testimony,
sometime between January 20 and 29, McAllister had told Mixson
that if the respondent "fired Soriano at This time, it would be bad,
for the simple reason that the Union was trying to negotiate -a con-
tract with the company." The record does not indicate why or under
what circumstances McAllister made such a statement to Mixson.
Bauer denied making the statement attributed to him by Soriano.
We credit Soriano's testimony, as did the Trial Examiner, and find
that Bauer did, in fact, make the statement.
At the hearing, Bauer testified that Soriano was not given regular,
full-time employment because he was too slow in making deliveries.
910 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, the record shows that Soriano's work was not criticized
while he was engaged in driving the truck or when Bauer informed
him that he could no longer drive.
The respondent's hostility to the Union was further demonstrated
in its treatment of Soriano. Before learning of Soriano's member-
ship' in the Union, the respondent offered him regular employment
as a truck driver, if he performed his work satisfactorily, and in fact
assigned him ' to the job held by Thompson, a regular truck driver.
The only reason now urged by the respondent for denying Soriano
such employment is that he was too slow. This stated reason finds
no support in the record. Soriano drove the truck for 56 hours,
without criticism. At the time he was taken off regular driving, he
was not informed that his services were not satisfactory. Moreover,
on February 3, Soriano was again assigned to drive a truck. The
real reason for denying Soriano steady employment is found in Sori-
ano's admission to Bauer that he had joined the Union, and in Bauer's
statement to Soriano that, since the latter had joined the Union and
McAllister had intervened with Mixson in his behalf, Soriano could
not "get back in steady."
Accordingly, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respond-
ent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Henry Soriano, 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.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find 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 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
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices , we shall 'order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondent has discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of-employment of Henry Soriano because of
his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.' We shall
therefore"order the respondent offer him -immediate and full - rein-
statement to his former position of permanent truck driver or to a
JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY 911
substantially equivalent position. We shall also order the-respondent
to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered, by reason
of the respondent's discrimination, by payment to him of a sum equal
to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from
the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of re-
instatement, less his net earnings' during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. Motor Transport and Allied Workers, Local #400, CIO; is a
labor. organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Henry Soriano, thereby discouraging membership in Motor
Transport and Allied Workers, Local #400, CIO, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair'labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid 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 engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Jacksonville Paper Company, doing business as Everglades Paper
Company, Miami, Florida, its officers, agents, successor's, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
("a) Discouraging membersip in Motor Transport and Allied Work-
ers, Local #400, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees
;5,By '; net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board. mcuired by an employee iu connection with obtaining work and working else-'
NN than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred'but'for his anla«ful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewheie . See platter
of Crossett Lumber, Company and United Brotherhood of Campente?s and Joiners of America,
Luihbei'and Sawmill`Woikeis Union, Loo'l 5i O, 8 N I, R B 440 Monies received for
ooomk performed upon Federal, State, county municipal. or other work-relief protects shall
be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R. B., 311 U S 7
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
or any other terms or conditions of employment of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through 'representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a). Offer to Henry Soriano immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position as permanent truck driver, or to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges;
(b) Make whole Henry Soriano for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of such
discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in the warehouse at
the respondent's Miami, Florida, branch, and maintain for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to
its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1
(a) and (b) hereof; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) hereof; and (3) that
the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of
Motor Transport and Allied Workers, Local #400, b6, and that
the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of
his membership or activity in said organization; 1
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER'ORDERED that the complaint; insofar as it alleges that
the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated against Jack C. Mertz, within.the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed
without prejudice.
- MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.