Fargo Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 495 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the matter of FAROO FOUNDRY COMPANY and FEDERAL LABOR UNION,
LOCAL 22364, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-9499.-Decided March 25,1943
Jurisdiction : steel products manufacturing and machine repair industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Collective Bargaining: majority established by authorization petition-refusal
to bargain collectively by : respondent' s failure to submit counter proposal to
contract offered by union ; and by refusal to meet with union or with con-
ciliator.
Remedial Orders : upon request to bargain collectively with the union.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production employees, including
truck drivers but excluding foremen, supervisors , watchmen, janitors , salaried
employees, salesmen , and timekeeper clerks ; stipulation as to.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 11, 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 a brief in support of the exceptions. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Fargo Foundry Company,
Fargo; North Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
48 N. L. R. B., No. 59.
495
'496 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union,
Local 22364, chartered by the American Federation of Labor, as the
exclusive representative of its production employees employed in the
plant at Fargo, North Dakota, including the truck drivers, but ex-
cluding foremen, supervisors, watchmen,,. janitors, salaried employees,
salesmen,, and'tip ekeeper, clerks;
(b) ' Engaging in like or related acts or conduct, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing' its employees iii. the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join; or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through represeritatives'of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the.purpose of collective bargain-
,ing 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'policie's'of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain.,collectively.,.with-,Federal Labor Union
Local 22364,• chartered.=by the American. Federation of .Labor, as the
exclusive representative of the production employees at its plant in
Fargo, North Dakota, including truck `drivers, but excluding fore-
men, supervisors, watchmen, janitors, salaried employees , salesmen,
and timekeeper clerks;
(b) Post within its plant at Fargo, North-Dakota, and maintain
for a period: of at least sixty''(60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, notices to its employees stating that it will not engage in the
conduct from which 'it' is ordered to, cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a') and (b) of this Order; and th' it'will take the affirmative action
set, forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this,Order;
(c) 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.
MR. JOiiN M. HousTON , took, no part in the consideration of the
above •Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stephen M Reynolds and Dlr. Francis X. Helgesen, for the Board.
Mr. Herbert G. Mlles of Fargo, N. D., for the respondent.
Mr. W. W. Murrey of Fargo, N. D., for the Union.
'STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I
Upon an amended charge filed on November 13, 1942, by Federal Labor,Union,
Local 2264, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 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 November 16, 1942, against Fargo Foundry Company, Fargo,
North Dakota, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
i
FARG"O FOUNDRY ' OOMI'ANY 407
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and .(7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint
and the amended charge accompanied by notice of hearing` were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent : (1) on or about March 19, April 15 and April 22, 1942, and
thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union although the Union
at all such times was the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees
in a unit appropriate for the purposes of -collective bargaining; and (2) by such
acts and by warning and discouraging its employees against affiliation with or
activity on behalf of the Union interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act.
The respondent's answer, duly filed, denied that it had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and affirmatively averred that it had .a
contract with the Local No. 94, International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees
with whom it was obligated to negotiate.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on December 3, 4, and 5, 1942, at Fargo,
North Dakota, before James C. Batten, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Acting Chief Trial-Examiner. The Board,,the respondent,' arrd
the Union were represented 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. During the hearing the under-
signed, without objection, granted the Board's motion to amend the allegation
of the complaint as to the appropriate unit. At the close of the hearing the
undersigned granted a motion by the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof
as to minor details. Oral argument was made by the Board and. the respondent.
No briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case the undersigned makes the following findings
of fact :
FINDINGS OFFACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
. The respondent, a North Dakota corporation with its offices and plant located
at Fargo, North Dakota, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of gray iron
castings, steel tanks and other. steel products, and in machine repair-work.. Prior
to the spring of 1942 the respondent normally purchased raw materials consisting
of steel products, of a value of about $200,000 per annum, 80 percent of which
were shipped to the respondent through the channels of interstate commerce from
points outside the State of North Dakota. Of its finished products, annually
valued at about $500,000, the respondent shipped 15 percent through the channels of
interstate commerce to points outside the, State of North Dakota. Subsequent to
the spring of 1942 the respondent has been engaged principally in the production
of war materials. During this time, the respondent has received, through the
channels of interstate commerce, approximately 80 percent of its raw materials
consisting chiefly of steel products, and shipped through those channels, approxi-
mately 40 percent of its finished products. During peacetime operations the
respondent employed during the slack winter months approximately 40 employees
and in the summer season approximately 110 employees. During March and
April 1942 the respondent employed approximately 75 production workers.
498 DECISIONS OF.-NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
,Federal Labor, Union, Local 22364 is a labor organization chartered by the
American Federation of Labor, admitting to, membership' production employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint,•and coercion
Aside from some minor conversations had by one Peterson, a foreman, with
two of 'the employees who signed a petition designating the Union as their bar-
gaining representative, in which he questioned them as to why they had signed
it, there is no evidence in the record of interference, restraint, or coercion other
than such as is directly connected with the principal issue of the respondent's
refusal to bargain with the Union. In the interest of brevity and chronological
orderliness , these will be developed in the discussion of the refusal to bargain.
B. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
By stipulation on the record between. all the parties, it was agreed that all
production employees of the respondent in its plant at Fargo, North Dakota;
including truck driversbut'excluding foremen; supervisors, -watchmen, janitors,
salaried employees, salesmen and timekeeper clerks,' constitute an appropriate
unit which will insure to the employees the full benefit of their right to self-,
organization and otherwise effectuate the policies of the act, and that such unit
is a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act. It is accordingly found that the foregoing is,and,
at Vll times since March 19, 1942, has been the unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
Between March 12, 1942, and-March 19, 1942, 61 of the employees within the
appropriate unit executed a document reading as follows:
The undersigned do hereby authorize the following committee of Local 22364
A..F. of L. to represent us in collective bargaining. The committee is as follows:
Joseph Flor, Oscar Erickson, William I-loganson, Gottfried Peterson, Leland
Patten and Carl Krumbein.
This document so executed by the 61 employees, was presented to the respondent
on March 19, 1942. No question was or has been raised as to the genuineness
of the signatures attached thereto and it was stated by the general manager of
the respondent, while on the witness stand,-that he recognized the men who
signed the document as constituting a majority of the employees described in
the unit heretofore found to be appropriate. It is therefore found that on March
19, 1942, the Union had been selected by a majority of the employees within the
appropriate unit as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining and
that the said Union was then and ever since has been, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
i The exclusion of timekeeper clerks was not a part of the stipulation but was held open
for decision by the undersigned and the Board. It is here round that they are not produc-
tion employees and should therefore be excluded
FARGO FOUNDRY COMPANY 499
3. The refusal to bargain
The record discloses nothing with reference to the labor relations of the
respondent prior to October 1937. On October 22, 1937, the respondent entered
into an agreement with Local No. 94, International Brotherhood of Foundry
Employees , in which the respondent recognized that union as the collective bar-
gaining agency for its members who were employees of the respondent, and for
several years thereafter maintained collective bargaining relations with the vari-
ous shop committees appointed by Local 94 from time to time for the purpose
of presenting grievances and otherwise bargaining collectively with the re-
spondent . This contract has never been officially abrogated or terminated by
either Local 94 or the respondent.
At 'the time the contract was entered into with Local 94, the latter organization
was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. In 1938, as a result of
jurisdictional. dispute, the International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees was
expelled from the American Federation of Labor and was deprived of any further
support from the State Federation of Labor in North Dakota, of which W. W.
Murrey is, and for some considerable period of time has been, president.
On March 11, 1940, the members of Local 94 voted to terminate its connection
with the International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees and to apply for
a charter from the American Federation of Labor. The application was
duly made and on June 3, 1940, a charter was issued by the American Federa-
tion of Labor creating Federal Labor Union No. 22364 at Fargo, North Dakota..
Following the granting of the charter, no immediate effort was made by the
Union to bargain collectively with the respondent. In the latter part of 1941,
however, a contract was prepared for presentation to the respondent but was
withheld because of business conditions which threatened a possible shut-down
of the foundry. In late February, 1942, with an improvement in the respond-
ent's business, the previously prepared contract was presented to H. G. Kornberg,
general manager of the respondent, by W. W. Murrey who was also acting as the
representative of the Union! Kornberg requested Murrey to allow him time
to study the contract and to then arrange for a subsequent meeting to discuss it.
Approximately two weeks elapsed with no word from Kornberg and on March 12,
1942, Murrey again called on him to arrange for a meeting. On this occasion
Kornberg stated that he questioned whether Murrey and his committee repre-
sented a majority of the employees. This precipitated a discussion as to how
such a majority could be determined. Murrey suggested that they hold an elec-
tion under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board. Kornberg ob-
jected to this. Murrey then suggested that they have a cross-check of their
membership cards against the pay roll but Kornberg likewise was unwilling to
agree to such a procedure and finally, on. Kornberg's suggestion, it was decided
that a petition be prepared and if it was signed by a sufficient number of the
employees, Kornberg would then enter into negotiations. Immediately there-
after the petition above-quoted was prepared and the necessary signatures
obtained'
On March 19, 1942, Kornberg met Murrey and the entire committee of six, at
which time the authorization above referred to was presented to him. He
checked the names and, according to his testimony, satisfied himself that they
constituted a majority of the employees, and then entered into negotiations with
2 Prior to the presentation of the contract to Kornberg by Murrey, the Union had
selected a committee to act with him but when Murrey visited Kornberg, the other mem-
bers of the committee were unable to attend and requested Murrey to act for them.
See Section B (2), supra.
521247-43-vol. 48-33
500 DECISIONS 6F'-1^AmIi6\AL' LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
Murrey and the committee concerning `the': ontract.4 The proposed contract
provided for, the, institution of a union shop and a substantial increase in wages.
Kornberg was unwilling to agree to, the inclusion of a union shop or closed-shop
provision in the -contract and objected to the wage increase. Although sub- .
stantial' agreement was reached on several provisions of the contract, the major
portion of, the discussion on this occasion had to do with the union, shop
provision and the wage rates. .
A further. meeting was held on March 27.which likewise was attended by the
entire committee, Murrey. and Kornberg, at which time the contract was further
discussed.but,without results' During this meeting Kornberg indulged in some
heated remarks concerning the Union - and the fact that he, regarded their
demands as,unreasonable. - However, it was agreed by the Union representatives
ton rewrite some of the provisions to conform to the language preferred by.
Kornberg and.with this understanding the meeting adjourned.
On about April'7 or 8, a third meeting of the committee, Murrey and Kornberg
was held, at which the committee had its rewritten contract. The provisions of
the original and rewritten contract were discussed, further agreements were
reached on some of the provisions, but no understanding was arrived at con-
cerning either the union shop provision or the proposed wages. ' During this'
meeting Kornberg referred to the presence of Murrey as that of a "racketeer"
and objected to the committee having an outsider with them but did not refuse to,
continue the negotiations with Murrey present. This meeting, like the others, was
productive of no substantial agreement on the contract other,than the incidental
provisions heretofore referred to.
On April 15, 1942', the last meeting of the committee and Murrey with Kornberg
was held. By this time Hoganson, one of the original members of the committee,
had left the employ of the respondent and one LaMotte had been designated by
the Union to take his place LaMotte sat with the committee at the April 15,
o more' than to inquiremeeting without objection from Kornberg who did no'
whether LaMotte,was a qualified member of, the committee, to which he received
an affirmative reply This meeting also was productive of no results except. that
at the close of the meeting Kornberg proposed that he would iewrnte the contract
as lie thought it should be written and submit,it to the committee as a.counter-
proposal. With this understanding the meeting broke up.
Following the April 15 meeting nothing further was heard from Kornberg until
April 25 when each ^ of the employees of the respondent was handed with their
pay a letter signed by Kornberg, dated April 22 and reading as follows :
To ALL E MPLOYEES :
FARGO, NORTii DAKOTA,
April 22, 194112.
The management is writing this letter to you to notify you that a certain
committee purporting to be selected by a majority of the employees will not
be recognized as a baiganiing committee unless'and until the entire chosen
committee is duly selected, chosen, and certified according to law.
One reason for this is that there is at this time an enemy alien sitting in
your committee and we are advised that according to law the management
is not obligated to negotiate with an enemy alien in regard to labor problems,'
47he opening paragraph of the original contract handed to Kornberg by- Murrey at
the-first meeting in late February 1942 read as follows
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this -------- day of 1941, by1
and between the 'Fargo Foundry Company, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and
the Foundry Employees Local Union 22364, A F. of L., hereinafter referred to as the
Union WITNESSETH:
FARGO FOUNDRY COMPANY 501
Another reason is that one member of such committee purporting to be
chosen has left the state and hence the membership of the committee is
incomplete.
We believe that you did not know of these conditions when electing this-
committee or you would not have surrendered your individual rights to a
bargaining group that may be influenced by an enemy alien.
Very truly yours,
FARGO FOUNDRY COMPANY
By : H. G. KOINRERG
H. G. Kornberg
General Manager
When the foregoing letter came to Murrey's attention he communicated with the
United States Conciliation Service and a Conciliator was promptly sent to Fargo
where conferences were held with Murrey and Kornberg. The efforts of the
Conciliator to bring the parties together were of no avail since Kornberg refused
to have any further dealings with the committee. It was Kornberg's position
that the committee was incomplete since Hoganson had left the employ of the
respondent and Krumbein, the enemy alien referred to in the letter of April 22,
had been discharged. Following this, no effort was ever made by Kornberg to
communicate with the Union nor did he ever submit the rewritten contract or any
other form of counterproposal and has at all times since then refused to meet
with the committee or bargain collectively with the Union.
During the negotiations, Kornberg at no time questioned the representative
capacity of the Union or referred to the fact that he had an unterminated contract
with Local 94 although it is uncontroverted that Local 94 has not functioned
in the respondent 's plant since March 1940 . . At no time did he question the
authority of LaMotte to serve on the committee until the letter of April 22,
nor was Krumbein 's status questioned.'
There is no question about Kornberg's full authority to act for and on behalf
of the respondent. This was verified to Murrey by one Simonson, the respondent's
president, shortly after the April 15, meeting, at which time Simonson informed
Murrey that Kornberg was employed as general manager of the foundry, that
he thoroughly knew his business and that he was expected to run the business
and that Simonson would not discuss the contract with Murrey. Kornberg was
unable to offer any excuse for his refusal to bargain with the Union, other
than to say that he did not consider the committee as one which represented
the Union but rather that it was a committee of individuals designated by the
employees, a number of whom were not members of the Union and that he would
not bargain with less than the full committee, and in no event with the committee
with an enemy alien as one of its members. He further stated that he did not
discover that he*was dealing with this Union rather than with Local 94 until
some days after the letter of April 22 when he compared the proposed contract
with the old 1937 contract, at which time he discovered that the 1937 contract
was a "members-only" contract and not one in which Local 94 was representing
all the employees. The undersigned, does not credit this contention of Kornberg.°
5 Carl Krumbein is a native of Germany who has been employed with respondent for
17 years. He is an unnaturalized German whose status was brought to the attention of
Kornberg on or about April 22 , 1942, immediately previously to the letter above referred to.
a Appraising Kornberg ' s testimony in the light of its implausibility , especially , when it
is undenied that the original petition designating Local 22364 as the representative of the
respondent ' s employees and that a copy of the proposed contract , naming Local 22364 as
a party thereto , was in Kornberg 's hands'and discussed as early as March 19 , persuades
the undersigned of its untrustworthy character . The undersigned finds that Kornberg on
and after March 19, was fully aware of the fact that he was dealing with the Union, as the
exclusive representative of the employees.
502 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was conceded by the respondent , during the course , of the hearing, that the
".`members-only" contract of, October 1937 with Local 94 would , not act as a bar
to the right of the Union to act for all the employees if it represented a majority
of'those in the appropriate unit.
. The petition, signed by the 61 employees and presented to Kornberg on March
19 is clearly a designation- of the Union to represent the employees who signed
the document , and it has heretofore been found that on March 19 and at all times
subsequent thereto, the Union did in fact represent a majority of the employees
within the appropriate unit. The respondent does not contend that an impasse
was reached in the negotiations and admits that it had refused and continues to
refuse to bargain with the Union or the committee or any part thereof. It is
therefore found that on and after April 22, 1942, the respondent did refuse and
has continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit heretofore described, and
that in so doing it has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
• The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above , occurring in
connection with the operations of the 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 unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the
respondent , upon request from the Union, bargain collectively with the Union
as-the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, on
matters pertaining to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment affecting the employees within the unit.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Federal Labor Union, Local 22364 , chartered by the American Federation of
Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. All ' production employees of the respondent at its plant in Fargo, North
Dakota, including-truck drivers, and excluding foremen, supervisors , watchmen;
janitors , salaried employees , salesmen , and timekeeper clerks, at all times mate-
rial herein , constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within,the meaning of Section 9 (b)' of the Act.
3. Federal Labor Union , Local 22364 , chartered by the American -Federation
of Labor , was on March 19, 1942, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing, on April 22, 1942, and at all times thereafter , to bargain col-
lectively with Federal Labor Union , Local 22364 , chartered by the American
Federation , of Labor, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
1
FARGO FOUNDRY COMPANY 503
appropriate unit heretofore described , the respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
5. 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recom-
mended that the respondent Fargo Foundry Company, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union Local 22364,
chartered by the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative
of its production employees employed in the plant at Fargo, North Dakota, in-
cluding the truck drivers, but excluding foremen, supervisors, watchmen, janitors,
salaried employees, salesmen and timekeeper clerks;
(b) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct, interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union Local 22364,
chartered by the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative
of the production employees at its plant in Fargo, North Dakota, including truck
drivers but excluding foremen, supervisors, watchmen, janitors, salaried em-
ployees, salesmen, and timekeeper clerks;
(b) Post within its plant at Fargo, North Dakota, and maintain for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its
employees that it will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended
in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) that it cease and desist; and that it will take
the affirmative action recommended in paragraph 2 (a) hereof;
(c) 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 to comply herewith.
It is also further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relation 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1342-
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 II of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington,
D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
504 DECISIONS OR NATIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding ( 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.
JAMES 0. BATTEN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 11, 1943.