Newark Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1945

59 N.L.R.B. 1408 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of NEWARK TELEPHONE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL
Case No. 8-C-1610.-Decided January 3,1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 8, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed
hereto. Thereafter counsel for the Board filed Exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and the respondent filed a brief in reply thereto. None
of the parties requested oral argument before the 'Board at Washing-
ton, D. C. The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the Exceptions of counsel for the Board, the
respondent's brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the additions noted below :
We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that it was necessary
for the respondent to lay off one member of its maintenance and con-
struction crew on December 31, 1943, for economic reasons. The only
question arises as to whether the respondent took advantage of this
prevailing circumstance to discriminate against Floyd H. Lentz. The
'Trial Examiner found that the respondent did not follow its customary
seniority policy in laying off Lentz. However, the record shows that
the practice of following seniority in lay-offs was not an inflexible one.
Moreover, uncontradicted testimony of the respondent's auditor shows
that length of service was merely one of the many factors considered
in laying off an employee, and that, in fact, other lay-offs had occurred
where seniority was not followed. Although the matter is not entirely
free from doubt and the circumstances surrounding Lentz's lay off give
rise to a suspicion of discrimination, we agree with the Trial Ex-
aminer that the evidence is insufficient to warrant such a finding.
59 N. L. R. B., No. 257.
1408
NEWARK TELEPHONE COMPANY 1409
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 complaint issued herein against the
respondent, Newark Telephone Company, Newark, Ohio, be, and it
hereby is dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MuLIs took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
William O. Murdock , for the Board.
Charles L. Flory and Robert H. Flory , of Newark , Ohio, for the respondent.
Ira Braswell, of Winchester , Ky., and Homer E. Petty, of Lancaster , Ohio, for
the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on June 29 , 1944, by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL , herein called the Union , the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board , by its Regional Director for the Eighth Region
(Cleveland , Ohio ), issued its complaint dated June 29, 1944 , against Newark
Telephone 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) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
National Lalior Relations At, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint , accompanied by notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent from about September 1, 1943, to the date of the complaint,
advised, urged , and coerced its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the Union ; vilified, disparaged , and expressed disapproval of the
Union; questioned and interrogated its employees regarding their activities in
behalf of the Union ; and on about January 1, 1944, discharged Floyd 11. Lentz
and thereafter failed and refused to reemploy him, because he joined and assisted
the Union and engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection . The respondent 's answer, dated
July 12, 1944 , denied the commission of the unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice, a hearing,was held at Newark, Ohio, on July 13, 14, and
15, 1944, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel
and the Union by representatives. 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 Board's case , the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter and for failure of proof. The latter
motion was renewed at the close of the case . The motion to dismiss for want of
jurisdiction was denied, and ruling on the motion to dismiss for want of proof
was reserved . It is disposed of as indicated hereinafter . Board's counsel moved
at the close of the hearing to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to
minor details, names , and dates . This motion was granted. At ,the close of the
respondent 's case the parties argued orally. No briefs have been filed.
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case and from-his observation of witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS CF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business at
Newark, Ohio. It has five exchanges, more than 10,000 subscribers, and serves
an area with a population of 40.000. Its lines connect with those of The Ohio
Bell Telephone Company and The Ohio Central Telephone Company. In addition
to local calls which pass over its wires, long distance interstate calls originate
with the respondent to be transmitted over lines of the connecting companies
and calls originating outside of the State of Ohio are received by the respondent
in the same manner. Its gross receipts for the year 1943 exceeded $400,000, of
which amount $7,400 was from inteistate toll calls.' In the past three calendar
years it has purchased materials of a total value in excess of $246,000, of which
materials, 34.17 percent by value were purchased outside of the State of Ohio.
The, undersigned finds that the respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.2
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL. is it labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED . UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion; atleged discharge of
Floyd H. Lentz
1. The chronology of events from organization of the Union to the termination of
Lentz's employment
About September 20, 1943, nine employees of the respondent's maintenance and
construction departments, including Floyd H. Lentz, attended a meeting arranged
by the Union. At that meeting they agreed to join the Union. A week later, 14
employees, including Lentz, attended another meeting and paid their initiation
fee and monthly dues At this meeting Lentz was elected chairman of the group
and of its negotiating committee.
On October 5, the respondent received notice that the War Labor Board had
approved its application for a 15 percent wage increase, retroactive to January 1,
1943, for all of its employees. This notice was the result of correspondence be-
ginning June 16, 1943. Upon receipt of this notice, the respondent had copies
made and posted on the bulletin boards. On the following day Lewis W. Easton,
president and general manager of the respondent, called the employees of the
construction and maintenance departments together, announced the increase
' The foregoing facts were stipulated to be correct.
The respondent's counsel reasoned that the respondent is not engaged in interstate
commerce because it is located entirely within the State of Ohio, and because the respondent
alone cannot place calls outside the State ; but respondent 's counsel conceded that inter-
state calls through other telephone companies could not be made out of the territory
serviced by the respondent without use of the respondent's equipment The respondent's
contentions are answered by the decisions in Consolidatcd•Edtison Co. v. N. L. R. B., 305
U. S. 197, and N. L. R. B v Central Missouri Telephone Co., 115 F. (2d) 563. Further-
more, respondent's importation of materials into the State of Ohio furnishes a basis for
jurisdiction of the Board.
NEWARK TELEPHONE COMPANY 1411
and then told them that because of wartime restrictions affecting construction
and installations and because of the resultant lack of work he would be obliged
to lay off four men, two on October 31,3 and two at the end of the year. -
A proposed contract was delivered in person by Homer Petty, representative
of the Union, to Easton, on about October 21, 1943. Petty at that time told Easton
he had all the men signed up. Easton asked for no proof but understood that he
was expected to make counter-proposals. Easton told Petty he would not be
able to give the contract much consideration until after the respondent, had
finished computing the amount of back pay due to the employees as a result of
the War Labor Board's approval of the wage increase. The contract was laid
aside, and Easton took no action on it. The Union wrote to the respondent there-
after but received no reply \' On November 24, 1943, it petitioned the Board for
investigation and certification under Section 9 (c) of the Act, and the respondent
was so notified. On November 20 the Board wrote the respondent setting 2 p. in.
on November 30 as time for a joint conference between the respondent, the Union,
and Board representatives.
At about 11: 30 a. in. on November 30, Easton called Lentz to the office and told
him that Petty had 'phoned and asked that Lentz be permitted to attend the
meeting that afternoon.' Both Lentz and Easton testified that Easton said he
could attend if he wanted to and he would be paid for the time he spent there.
Lentz testified, however, that Easton first showed him the letters from the Board
and then asked, what they meant, and that when Lentz said they were going to
have an election, Easton reminded Lentz that lie had been "mighty good" to
Lentz when the latter was in the hospital with a broken arm in December 1942.
According to Lentz, Easton said that he would have been obliged to pay Lentz
only $13 75 a week, but that he paid hun straight time and that he put him in a
private room when he might have put him in a ward. Lentz testified that Easton
also said that he (Lentz) was not as good a man as he was 20 years before. Harry
Redman, plant superintendent, and Reta Clemans, auditor, were present at the
time. Redman flatly denied that Easton had said anything to Lentz about hav-
ing been good to him when he had broken his arm. Clemans denied that there
was any conversation beyond that of Lentz's attendance at the conference that
afternoon and testified specifically that she did not hear anything said about the
respondent's good treatment of Lentz. Easton testified that he made no state-
ment about the respondent's treatment of Lentz to his recollection. Redman's
testimony was inconsistent and the undersigned regards his testimony as un-
reliable., It was not shown that Clemans, though present, gave her undivided
attention to the entire conversation. The conversation occurred near her desk,
and that fact plus her testimony that she did not hear anything said about the
respondent's good treatment of Lentz suggests that she may have been pursuing
her own duties and missed some of the conversation. Because of the fact that
Easton testified merely that he did not recall having made such statement and
that Lentz was quite emphatic that the statement was made, and because the
3 The two men laid off on October 31 were apprentices who had been employed only a
short time -
4 The only date of such correspondence revealed by the evidence was "before the com-
pany was notified by the Labor Bard that a petition had been filed " Easton testified
that early in November he telephoned the Northern Ohio Telephone Company and the
Mansfield Telephone Company for copies of their union contracts, but that he received
nothing but promises„and when he was notified by the Board of the Union's petition for
investigation and certification , he decided to let the Board proceed and made no further
effort to get such copies.
6 Lentz testified that Petty had phoned him the night before and asked him to attend
the conference , and that he (Lentz ) requested Petty to-call Easton and ask him to permit
him (Lentz ) to attend
1412 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undersigned regards Lentz as an honest witness, it is found that Easton did make
the statements attributed to him by Lentz e
At the meeting that afternoon arrangements were made for an election to be
held on December 16 The Union lost the election, held that day, by a vote of
7 to 12.
On December 31 at 3: 45 p. m., the employees of the construction and mainte-
nance departments were called to the office There, Easton, reading from a
prepared statement, announced that, as predicted in October, it was necessary
to reduce the force at this time and that because of complaints regarding Lentz's
conduct, it had been decided to release Lentz rather than the youngest em-
ployee! Redman took Lentz to the garage and relieved him of his keys. At
that time Lentz told Redman that he thought he was being discharged because
of his union activities and also said that he intended to go to the Industrial
Commission regarding the injury he had suffered in 1942.
2. Respondent's explanation of Lentz's layoff
Lentz first worked for the respondent in 1917, but he left voluntarily in Feb-
ruary 1922. Returning to the respondent in April 1923, Lentz worked continu-
ously in the maintenance and construction departments until his lay off on
December 31, 1943. For most of those 20 years he worked as a lineman and as
an installer. As a lineman he assisted an installer, who had charge of the
,truck they used. In April 1942 he was raised to the-position oftinstaller and
took charge of a truck with one man, a lineman, under his direction! His
lineman for a year prior to October 11, 1943, was Seward Settle.
It was the custom of the installer to get his assignment of orders in the
morning and to return to the respondents building at noon and at the end of
the day.
During the summer of 1943, Easton received the criticism from subscribers
that two of the respondent's men had been seen loafing in the truck, smoking
and reading newspapers. The first such critic identified Settle as one of the
two men. This necessarily identified Lentz as the other. Another such com-
plaint came through an anonymous telephone call. The caller gave Easton the
license number of the truck, and Easton, on checking, discovered that it was
Lentz's truck. That noon Easton spoke to Lentz about the incident. Lentz
admitted having parked at the location reported and gave the explanation that
there was not sufficient time to start a new job before lunch. He denied that
he had been reading a newspaper or that there was any newspaper in the truck.
Easton told Lentz that in the future, if he had any, time to-waste, he- should
return to the respondent's building, explaining to Lentz the objection, from
the public relations angle, to his being seen loafing. T. J. Evans, secretary and
treasurer of the respondent, during the latter part of 1943 told Easton he had
seen Lentz and his lineman, smoking and wasting time in the truck.
6 While Easton's statements are regarded as a mild attempt to persuade Lentz to
forego his interest in organization of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining,
the undersigned, because of the absence of other evidence of interference or coercion does
not find this to be a violation of the Act. However, it is not meant to suggest that the
respondent may in the future interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in their right
to select their own bargaining agent without violating the Act.
* There were five or six employees in the construction and maintenance departments
who had been with the respondent for a shorter period of time than Lentz
8 The men in charge of trucks were called gang foremen but had little supervisory power.
They had the work orders, took the initiative in executing the work, and controlled the
manner of execution. but they had no authority to hire and fire nor affect the status of
the other men The position of installer carried more pay than that of lineman.
NEWARK TELEPHONE COMPANY 1413
About October 11, 1943, Lentz asked Easton to change his lineman, saying
that Settle had high blood pressure and that he did not want Settle to fall from
a pole ° As a result, Settle was taken off Lentz's truck and was advised to
have a medical examination. Lentz was then given a lineman named Mclnturf.
Toward the end of October, Settle asked Easton if he was going to be put back
on Lentz's truck Easton told Settle that Lentz wanted him off the truck be-
cause Lentz had said that he had had to watch Settle to see that he did not
kill himself falling off a pole and that this had interfered with his own work.
Settle thereupon' became angry and told Easton that Lentz had been killing
time, and he related instances when Lantz had parked or driven around to
kill time, or had stopped during working hours, between jobs, to drink beer -
or whiskey, spending from 10 minutes to an hour and a half.10 In his testimony,
Lentz admitted having parked on more than one occasion and idled when
there was no time to start a new job. He also confessed to having stopped
on numerous occasions between calls for a drink of beer or whiskey. He claimed
that this had been his practice and that of other employees for 20 years"
On December 8, 1943, at about 3 p. m. Lentz was driving past the State liquor
store. He noticed that there was no line in front and he decided to stop and get
his Christmas ration. He parked the truck double in front of the liquor store, leav-
ing Mclnturf in the truck. Easton happened by at this time, saw the truck double
parked, and saw Lentz in the liquor store. He testified that this was one of the
few times, in his life when he was really angry and that he was not so much
concerned with the fact that Lentz stopped to purchase liquor as with the fact that
Lentz had left the truck "in plain view of all the public" in front of the store,
double parked, with his helper idling. Easton walked into the store, tapped
Lentz on the shoulder, said "Hello, Bob," 12 and walked out. He walked down
the street, returned in a few minutes and told Mclnturf to move the truck, then
waited nearby to see how long Lentz took. In about 20 minutes Lentz came out,
drove home with his liquor ration, and then went on to his next job. Easton said
nothing to Lentz about this incident thereafter. -
During December 13 Easton discussed with Redman who should be laid off
at the end of the year. Easton decided on Lentz, although he was a man of
longer service than several of the others He testified, ". . . I decided that
perhaps the best thing for the Company insofar as our public relations was con-
9 The undersigned infers from scattered bits of testimony that the real reason for this
request was that Lentz regarded Settle as an unsatisfactory assistant.
1° Lentz estimated the longest time they stopped for beer as 20 minutes. Settle so
obviously bore a grudge against Lentz and was so obviously vindictive that the under-
signed regarded most of his testimony of Lentz's delinquencies as gross' exaggerations.
Easton testified that he took Settle's statements "with a grain of salt" but had received
substantiation for them through other reports -
n Trouble-shooter Delbert Hoskinson, a man of 19 years of unbroken. service, testified he
stopped once a day for a drink. Wayne Mathews, another trouble shooter, with 8 years of
service, testified he would stop at a restaurant or someplace for a drink between assign-
ments on occasions. Usually, however, a trouble man would call in to notify the
respondent of his location so he could be given the next trouble call when it came in.
J. W. Hitchcock, foreman of the construction truck, testified that on returning at the end
of the day in the warm weather he was accustomed to stop to get a glass of beer. The
construction gang, the undersigned infers, had less contact with subscribers than the
installation men, and the evidence indicated less tendency for the former to brink
between assignments. Other installers did not have Lentz's habit of pausing for alcoholic
refreshment during the work day.
11 Lentz was nicknamed "Bob." Easton explained that he went in to get Lentz's atten-
tion and that he said nothing more because he does not like to talk when he is angry.
13 The date could not be established Redman testified' it was sometime between
December 8 and 30.
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerned and insofar as the efficiency of operations that the best thing would be to
release Mr. Lentz in preference to any other one man."
Easton testified that Settle had told him that Lentz had said he was not afraid
of being laid off because the company had not settled with him for the injury he
had sustained in December 1942. Because of this, Easton testified, in the latter
part of December, he consulted the respondent's attorneys about his intention to
lay Lentz off.34 They advised him to prepare affidavits concerning the facts which
were responsible for Lentz's lay off. Easton caused to be prepared affidavits
executed by himself, Settle, and T J. Evans, secretary-treasurer of the
respondent.`
3 Evidence bearing on the cause of Lentz's lay off and conclusions- in
respect thereto
The undersigned is satisfied that the respondent did not need all the men it
had in its employ in the fall of 1943 and that the plan to lay off four men by
the end of the year was not directed against the Union. The sole issue , then, is
whether the respondent made opportunistic use of that plan to get rid of Lentz,
the Union protagonist.
Lentz's conviction that he had been discharged for union activity arose from
the fact, according to his testimony, that when he talked to Easton on Novem-
ber 30 about the election conference, Easton had told him how good the com-
pany-had been to him when.he had,broken his arm., From this he deduced that
Easton wad angry. Subsequently, he inferred a coolness on Easton's part from
the fact, as he testified, that Easton did not speak to him from November 30 to
December 31, except for the one time in the liquor store on December 8. Such
facts, if true, are suggestive, but, the undersigned believes, insufficient basis for
the conclusion that Lentz was laid off or discharged for his union activity. The
record did not disclose that Easton came into contact with Lentz between Novem
her 30 and December 8 under circumstances where he saw Lentz and would
normally have spoken. If he was cool toward Lentz after that date, there was
some cause for him to be in view of the liquor store incident
The record is not devoid of evidence creating, some suspicion as to Easton's
motives in laying Lentz off. Employee Wayne Mathews testified that in October
or November, in the garage, Easton talked to some of the men and said that
"he would run it to the best of all of us, if other people did not interfere"
No further evidence was given as to how Easton came to say this, as to what
lie meant by "other people," or as to how it was understood by the men. Easton
was not questioned about the statement. While the statement might be assumed-
to have related to the Union, the undersigned feels that, because of the scantiness,
of the evidence as to how the statement came to be made or as to, how it was
understood by the employees, the evidence lacks probative value.
The fact that the Union lost the election although it had 14 paid members at
the time might arouse the suspicion that there was some interference, but it is
entirely possible that the wage increase influenced the vote.
34 Easton explained that he had heard of cases of unscrupulous claims and he feared that
someone might get Lentz to claim large damages
Easton ' s affidavits related the two instances when lie received criticism from sub-
scribers about Lentz ' s and Settle ' s parking , and the December 8 incident Settle's'affidavit
related an alleged instance of Lentz's semi -intoxication on an installation job, Lentz's
habit of stopping to drink beer and whiskey , and his habit of parking to waste time
which , Settle ' s affidavit said, was changed to aimless driving after Easton had told him
not to park for loafing purposes. Evans' affidavit related four instances of Lentz's loafing
which he had witnessed, two in the latter part of 1943
1
NEWARK TELEPHONE COMPANY 1415
- Evidence adduced by the Board indicated that the respondent had always
followed a practice of laying off men with the least seniority 10 Since this
practice was not followed in Lentz's case a question is raised as to the reason
for the deviation. A desire to get rid of a leading union member is only one
possible reason. Another equally possible reason is Lentz's lax habits. While
Lentz's helpers may also have wasted time, Lentz, being in charge, would be held
responsible.
Easton testified that he had no objection to the men's practice of stopping
to do personal errands or to get a drink so long as they did not have liquor
on their breath when they called on the next customer, that the reports of Lentz's
loafing rather than his drinking was the principal reason for his lay off,17 and
that the liquor store incident of December 8 entered into consideration only
indirectly. He further testified that, if he had a position open, he would reemploy
Lentz but would not give him a job, in charge of an installation truck because
he felt that Lentz had failed in his responsibilities to that job-that he had
proved incapable of being a gang foreman or of working by himself, although
he was capable of doing the work "if he could control himself."
Since Lentz's lay off, the installation work has been handled alternately by
Earl Deyo and Charles Evans, assisted by Settle. Deyo had previously been
in charge of the installation truck and Evans had been on the construction truck.
Because of lack of outside work, these two men had been transferred to the
office payroll doing engineering work in connection with a continuing property
record requested by the Federal Communications Commission. Their work on
that job was finished by December 1, and that meant that there were two men
more than were needed. One man, a trouble shooter, resigned on December 20.
For this reason Easton decided to lay off only one man instead of two, Deyo and
Evans were, therefore, justifiably assigned to the installation truck, and the
only serious question is why, if Lentz was capable of working under someone
though not alone, Easton did not leave Lentz on as assistant to Deyo and Evans
and lay off some man with less service. If Lentz's record had been unimpeach-
able, that solution would have been the natural one. From the testimony as
well as his observation of Lentz, Deyo, Evans, and other witnesses, however,
the undersigned is satisfied that Lentz not only drank liquor with greater reg-
ularity than the others, but was also of an easier going disposition which might
fall easily into lax habits. Of the employees who testified, Settle struck the
undersigned as the one whom the respondent might best have done without,
judging from his conduct and appearance on the stand and from statements
which inferentially made Settle dut as, one whom the foremen- found unsatis-
factory. But such considerations are speculative. It cannot be said that,
from a public relations standpoint, as Easton testified, he may not have been
justified in selecting Lentz Since the Union had lost the election two weeks
prior to Lentz's lay off, nothing was to be accomplished by laying Lentz off.for
union activity, and no cogent explanation of a cause related to union activity
appears unless it can be inferred that Easton felt that Lentz had crossed him
and that Easton was a vindictive sort of person, an impression the undersigned
did not receive from Easton's testimony or conduct. On the entire record the
undersigned is not satisfied that the evidence establishes that Lentz was discharged
or laid off because of his union membership or activity.
to This was contradicted by the respondent ' s evidence However , the prepared state-
ment which Easton read from on December 31 would indicate that the respondent usually
followed seniority'in laying men off, and the undersigned so finds
17 The undersigned understands that this includes the time which Lentz spent in drinking
places . In other words , while Easton had no prejudice against a man's drinking , he felt
he should not waste so•much time = during the working day
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon, the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent, Newark 'Telephone Company, constitute
a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act as alleged
in the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of'law, and the
entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the complaint against
the respondent, Newark Telephone Company, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26,
1943, any party or counsel for the Board 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,
Rochambeau, Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a state-
ment 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 be relies upon, together with an original and four copies of a
brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall
file a copy with the Regional Director. 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 within, ten (10) days from the date of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
JAMES R. HEMINOWAY,
Trial Examiner
Dated September 8, 1944.