Tennessee Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 654 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

'654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
U. S. PHOSPHORIC PRODUCTS DIVISION, TENNESSEE CORPORATION and
INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION7 AFL. Case No. 10-
C1_1153. June 1111952
On December 27, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his
Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the, Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent requested, and was
denied, permission to file a reply brief.
The Board* has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it is,
,dismissed in its entirety.
Intermediate Report
.STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and upon a second amended charge ' duly filed on July 10,
1951, by International Chemical Workers Union , AFL, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively
referred to as General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), issued a complaint dated July 7, 1951 , against
U. S. Phosphoric Products Division , Tennessee Corporation at Tampa, Florida,
'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 (a) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act . Copies of the charge, the
complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleges in substance and effect that: ( 1) At all times material herein,
the Respondent has recognized and bargained with U. S. Phosphoric Products
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
'[Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
I The charge was filed November 6, 1950, and the first amended charge was filed on May
10, 1951.
99 NLRB No. 104.
U. S. PHOSPHERIC PRODUCTS DIVISION 655
Corporation Employees Association, herein called the Independent; (2) on
October 27, 1950, or thereabout, and at all times material herein before that
date, Lawrence M. Polk, Sr., was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2
(11) of the Act, employed by Respondent at East Tampa plant, who, on and
prior to about September 1950, was a member in good standing of, and gave
assistance and support to, the Independent; (3) on or about September 1,
1950, the said Polk joined the Union, and thereafter engaged in activities
on behalf of the Union; (4) on or about October 27, 1950, the Respondent dis-
charged said Polk and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him because
he refused to terminate his activities on behalf of the Union, and to give as-
sistance and support to the Independent, for the purpose of inducing and
coercing its employees to become and remain members of, and to give assistance
and support to, the Independent, and to refrain from becoming or remaining
members of, or engaging in activities on behalf of, the Union ; and (5) by the acts
above described the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
On or about July 23, 1951, the Resondent filed an answer wherein it admitted
certain affirmative allegations of the complaint but denied that it had committed
the unfair labor practices alleged.
' Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Tampa, Florida, on July 26 and 27,
1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel, and
the Union was represented by its vice president. All parties were offered full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing the General
Counsel and counsel for Respondent argued orally before the undersigned, which
argument was included in the transcript of the testimony. At the close of the
hearing General Counsel made a motion to conform the pleadings to the proof.
The motion was granted without objection.
During the hearing counsel for the Respondent made motions to strike certain
portions of the complaint and to dismiss the complaint, which motions were
denied with the proviso that they might be renewed at the close of the hearing.
At the close of the hearing such motions were renewed, whereupon the undersigned
reserved ruling thereon for his Intermediate Report. Said motions are disposed
of in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations below.
Upon the entire record in the case and-from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
U. S. Phosphoric Products Division, Tennessee Corporation is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York, with an office and place of
business at East Tampa, Florida, where it has been engaged at all times material
herein in the manufacture of chemicals. During the 12 months preceding the
hearing, which period is representative of all times material herein, it purchased
new materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than 50 percent of which, in
value, originated outside the State of Florida and was shipped in interstate com-
f Prior ' to its amendment at the hearing, the complaint alleged that the Respondent, by
and through its Personnel Director Thomas H. Freeman , Jr., had interrogated its em-
ployees concerning their union membership , activities , and sympathies . On motion of
General Counsel such allegation was stricken from the complaint.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merce to the East Tampa plant. During the same period, it manufactured and
sold finished chemical products, at the East Tampa plant, valued in excess of
$1,000,000, more than 75 percent of which, in value, was sold and shipped to
customers outside the State of Florida.'
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, and U. S. Phosphoric Products
Corporation Employees Association are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events antedating discharge of Lawrence M. Polk, Sr.
1. The Independent; its organization; and bargaining contracts
with Respondent
The record discloses that the Independent was first recognized by Respondent
as bargaining representative for its employees in 1938. The first written con-
tract between the Independent and Respondent, insofar as is disclosed by the
record, was entered into on August 17, 1944. The next written contract entered
into between the parties 'was•dated, February 18, 1948. Under the terms °of.the
1944 contract the parties bargained concerning the wages of the yardmaster and
head locomotive operator and labor foreman, together with their seniority which
was established under the terms of the contract. Under the terms of the 1948
contract the parties bargained concerning the wages and seniority rights covering
head labor foreman, labor foremen, head locomotive operator and yardmaster,
and heads of other departments, such as construction department, electrical
department, and mechanical department.
Under date of February 25, 1949, the Union filed a petition in case No. 10-RC-
528, certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, follow-
ing which the parties entered into a "stipulation for certification upon consent
election." Such election was held on April 27, 1949. The tally of ballots dis-
closed that out of the eligible voters ;numbering 558, the Union received 111 votes
and the Independent 422 votes, with 10 votes being cast against both participating
labor organizations and there being 1 challenged ballot.
Under date of July 11, 1949, the Board issued its Decision and Certification of
Representatives wherein it certified that the Independent had been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees, in the unit set forth below, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
The unit described in said Decision is as follows :
All maintenance and production employees in the East Tampa, Florida,
Plant of the U. S. Phosphoric Products Division, Tennessee Corporation, ex-
cluding office-clerical employees, head carpenter, head labor foreman, labor
foremen, head mechanic, head machinist, head pipefitter, head boilermaker
and sheet metal worker, head welder, head electrician, head painter, gateman,
salesmen, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act, as amended.
8 The findings in this section are based upon the allegations contained in the complaint
as admitted by Respondent's answer.
U. S. PHOSPHERIC PRODUCTS DIVISION 657
The record indicates that following the election, and on or about May 10, 1949,
the Union filed objections to the election in said Case No. 10-RC-528, which
objections were subsequently withdrawn on or about July 5, 1949, and prior to
the Board's decision and certification of representatives.'
The record discloses that under date of February 14, 1949, the Respondent
and the Independent entered into a further collective-bargaining contract under
the terms of which wages were contracted for covering shift foremen, head labor
foreman, labor foremen, head machinist, head pipefitter, head boilermaker and
sheet metal worker, and head painter, all of whom had been excluded from the
appropriate unit under the Board's Decision and Certification of Representation!
2. Polk's organizational activities
a. On behalf of the Independent
Polk was hired in June 1946 as a truck driver and was promoted to position
of labor foreman on June 30, 1946. On the day that he was hired Polk paid an
initiation fee to join the Independent and thereafter and until a few months
after his discharge he paid 25 cents per month dues to the Independent.
As has been indicated hereinabove and, pursuant to a "Stipulation for Cer-
tification upon Consent Election," an election was held at the Respondent's plant
on April 27 and 29, 1949, at which the employees voted to determine whether
the Independent or the Union should be selected as bargaining representative for
the employees in the appropriate unit. Also as set forth above, the record dis-
closes that the Independent won the election 422 to 111 and was subsequently
duly certified as such representative.
Polk testified without dispute and the undersigned finds that for some 30 days
before the date of the election, above referred to, he was active in encouraging
employees to become members of the Independent, in procuring signed applica-
tions for membership in the Independent from different employees, and in collect-
ing dues for such membership. Generally speaking, Polk confined his efforts
to signing up new members or inducing former members to rejoin the Inde-
pendent among the employees of the labor gang, of which gang he had general
supervision along with Robert Hale on the different assignments to which the
labor gang was normally engaged. Polk testified that he signed up or re-signed
some 125 to 150 employees to membership in the Independent.
On the Friday preceding the day of election, at the request of William Shaw,
then president of the Independent, Polk punched out for the day and went to
the office where the employees were paid on this particular Friday. As the
employees got their pay he contacted those who were in arrears in their mem-
bership dues, and attempted to collect the same ; as to those who were not mem-
bers he sought to and in many instances was successful in having the employees
• The foregoing is referred to herein for the reason that the General Counsel in the
instant case contends in substance and effect that the Independent was assisted by
Respondent 's supervisors in the election above referred to ; and the fact that the Union
did not pursue and insist upon the objections to the election above referred to may have
some bearing upon the instant matter. This subject is discussed further below.
7 Thomas H. Freeman , Jr., personnel director for Respondent, testified "that for the
past several years Respondent Company has had collective bargaining contracts with the
U. S. Phosphoric Products Corporation Employees Association ; and that the Association
is an independent labor organization ; that the Association does not represent any employees
other than employees of the Company ;" and further :
Q. Is that Association currently recognized by the Company as the collective bar-
gaining agent for any of its employees?
A. It is.
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign up and pay the initiation fee and a month's dues. He worked from about 2: 007
or 2: 30 in the afternoon unti14: 00 p. in. on this assignment.' --
In addition to personal solicitation of members for the Independent on pay
day at the office, as above described, Polk testified that he gave out handbills=
on behalf of the independent during the time prior to the election. At the time
Polk was passing out handbills on behalf of the Independent, representatives
of the Union were also passing out such bills. General Superintendent of Con-
struction Wells testified that he had noted Polk passing out handbills on the
highway adjoining Respondent's property. Polk testified on at least one occasion,
when representatives of both the Independent and the Union were passing out
bills, Personnel Supervisor Freeman had chased all bill passers to the highway
and off the company premises.'
It is undisputed that Polk's position as labor foreman was that of a supervisor
under the terms of the Act.
b. On behalf of the Union
Polk testified, and the undersigned finds, that on or about August 1, 1950, Polk
joined the Union and thereafter until on or about October 27, 1950, the date
of his discharge, was active in soliciting and signing up members on behalf
of the Union.
Polk estimated that he signed up some 125 to 150 employees in the Union,
most of whom were solicited from the labor gang over which he had supervision
when they were assigned to his gang. The record indicates that all of the labor
gang was composed of Negroes and in his effort to enroll them in the Union,
Polk visited a number of them at their homes and secured signed application
cards from many of them. Polk testified that with one exception he did not
sign up any applicants on company time or property, but did discuss the Uniom
with the different members of his gang as a result of such members asking him
questions concerning the Union. He testified : "I wouldn't start it but if anyone
asked me questions I would answer their questions about it ; but as far as signing
them up I wouldn't sign them up on company time."
Polk further testified that the Union got to the point where they held meeting%
and tried to hold such meetings once a week. At an informal meeting held at
Seaman's Hall or Seafarers' Hall, some 2 weeks prior to Polk's discharge, Polk
was elected temporary president, one Flowers temporary recording secretary,
and Joe Mange's temporary vice president. The meeting last above referred to
was held about 2 weeks before Polk's discharge ; such meetings had been dis-
continued following such discharge ; and no formal meetings were held and no
8 Polk testified that the Independent reimbursed him for the loss of pay occasioned by
his checking out on this occasion General Superintendent of Construction Carlos C.
Wells testified that it was the practice , "once in a while," for the Independent to ask
the release of some employee to perform association duties on Friday from 2:30 to
3: 30 p. in. ( Respondent 's pay day ). When the Respondent granted such requests the
employees ' "company time" stopped.
7 As to Respondent's knowledge of Polk 's activity on behalf of the Independent, Polk, In
part, testified :
Q. But there would be no reason why the supervisors of the Company would know
you were signing up the men in your gang , would there?
A. I wouldn't say they didn't know it, or I couldn't swear that they did know it,
no more than the one time I signed up at the pay office, and I believe one of the . .
I think all of them knew I was signing them up, because I had to get permission from
Mr. Wells , through either . . . I don't know whether it was through Mr Bill Shaw
or Dan Thompson ( Independent officials), one of the two.
U. S. PHOSPHORIC PRODUCTS DIVISION 659'
dues collected. According to Polk, approximately 35 employees were present at
the meeting above referred to.
On the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record the undersigned is of'
the opinion that Polk engaged in the activities on behalf of the Independent
and the Union at the times and in the manner described above.'
3. Issues : contentions; conclusions
The Genei at Counsel's contentions are best stated by quoting paragraph 4 of
the complaint, reading as follows.
The Respondent discharged the said Polk, and failed and refused to rein-
state him, because he refused to terminate his activities on behalf of the
Union and to give assistance and support to the Independent, and for the
purpose of inducing and coercing its employees to become and remain mem-
bers of, and to give assistance and support to, the Independent, and to
refrain from becoming or remaining members, or engaging in activities on
behalf of, the Union.
In his oral argument before the undersigned, the General Counsel, in part,
stated :
In short, Mr. Examiner, I wanted to show how this case fell under the
line of cases where a supervisor is entitled to be reinstated with back pay
if lie refuses to engage in unfair labor practices at the request of the Re-
spondent, of the Company, I mean, and is discharged for his refusal to do
so. Here lie refused to continue an S (a) (2) violation, he refused to con-
tinue to give illegal assistance and support to the Independent, and that
was the principal part of the reason for his discharge, I submit, under the
facts and testimony in this case.
I do want to cite the Examiner, in support of these propositions, several
authorities which are cited in the Intercity Decision, 89 NLRB, and the
citations are at page 1138, and call attention also to the Decision in Salant
and Salant, 92 NLRB, Case No. 69, at 27 LRRM, page 1092.
The General Counsel's citation above was given to the undersigned on the
record under date of July 27, 1951. However, under date of July 16, 1951, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the Board's
decision insofar as it was applicable to the discharge of the supervisory employee.
The court said :
With respect to the findings as to the discharge of the supervisory em-
ployee, Peeler, however, and the order of reinstatement thereon, we do not
think that the Board's action is sustained by the record. On the contrary,
we think it perfectly fair that Peeler was discharged because of his con-
nection with the organization of the Union and we agree with the dissenting
opinion of Member Reynolds that there is no substantial evidence to support
the finding that he was discharged because he would not engage in the
unfair labor practice of spying upon other employees. As he was a super-
visory employee, he was not protected from discharge because of union
membership or activities.
8 Polk testified as to both organizations that be succeeded in signing up from 125 to
150 employees in each organization. While the undersigned is convinced that he un-
doubtedly signed up a considerable number on behalf of both organizations, the record
would not support a finding that he actually succeeded in signing some 250 to 300 em-
ployees divided between the Independent and the Union, all of which leads the undersigned
to believe that Polk may have overestimated the results of his organizational activities on
the whole.
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Order of the Board will accordingly be modified by eliminating there-
from Section 2 (d) which directs the reinstatement of Peeler with back
pay ; and as so modified it will be enforced . Modified and enforced.
In order that the General Counsel may prevail, it must affirmatively appear
that Polk was discharged for his failure to engage in antiunion activities or
other unfair labor practices , expressly demanded of him by his superiors. In
this connection the General Counsel appears to rely upon Polk's testimony
wherein the latter contends that J. D. Magee, general foreman of the insecticide
department, who on a number of different occasions, according to Polk, wanted
the latter to drop the Union and run for president of the Independent. In this
connection Polk testified :
Q. What did he (Magee) say?
A. He wanted me to drop the Chemical Workers and run for president
of the Association.
Q. Run for president of the Association?
A. That is right, and he would back me. What he meant by backing me
I don 't know.
Polk says that while Magee informed him that if he would drop the AFL
.and run for president of the Association, Magee would support him, he did
not say what kind of backing he would give him. "He just said he would-back
me." ° Polk testified that Joseph Lafaye, yardmaster, who, "if he happened to
be by he would stop and talk to me, or if he was riding by on a scooter he would
holler `Hi, President'. and the last type of incident had happened on more than
10one occasion."
Polk also testified that Gene Gordon, his immediate supervisor, advised
him, "Don't stick your neck too far" and when Polk said, "What do you mean?"
Gordon said, "with this Union," to which Polk replied, "Well, I ain't sticking it
out too far." In this connection Polk testified :
Q. I see. He said, "with this Union?"
A. That is right.
Q. What was he referring to?
A. The A. F. of L., because he knew I was working for them, because I
told him I was working to get the A. F. of L. in there.
Q. Was there anything else said that you recall?
A. The only thing he said , he said , "Better watch out, the axe is liable to
fall." I told him, "I ain't worried about it falling on me." I told him I come
there looking for a job, and I would go away looking for a job.
Polk further testified that with reference to his talks with Magee and Lafaye,
"I would tell them nothing doing, I wouldn't drop it." I says, "If I was Presi-
dent, no matter what kind of a contract I brought up to the Company would
never sign it."
Polk testified that on the Tuesday before he was fired, and as he was getting
ready to punch out, Personnel Director Freeman told him to come to the person-
nel office after has had punched out. In this connection Polk testified :
9 Magee as a witness for Respondent testified and categorically denied that he had told
Polk to quit working for the Chemical Workers Union or that he would help him become
president of the Association ; and further testified that he did not learn that Polk had
been active for the AFL until after Polk's discharge.
10 Lafaye, called as a witness for Respondent, testified that he and Polk were good
friends but that be had no recollection of telling Polk to run for president of the Inde-
pendent and to drop the AFL and affirmatively testified that be did not know that Polk
was active on behalf of the AFL until after his discharge . Lafaye admitted that he did
refer to Polk as "Hi. President !" Lafaye testified that he and Magee were brothers -in-law.
U. S. PHOSPHORIC DIVISION 661
Q. Did you go in the office?
A. I went in the office.
Q. Was anybody else present?
A. Nobody present. We were at the door.
Q. What did he say?
A. He wanted to know what the trouble was out in the yard. I says,
"There ain't no trouble." He says, "Yes, there is trouble ; I mean the A. F.
of L. trouble." I told him, "There ain't no trouble ; 90 percent of the men
are union anyhow." So I told him what the trouble started from was, one
of the supervisors firing a man for no cause ; and he wanted to know why
I didn't go to the Union here. I told him I had been to Bill Shaw with it
at least 4 times.
Q. You say the Union ; does that mean the Association?
A. The Association. I told him that I had been to Bill Shaw with it
at least 4 times, and there was nothing done about it. Every time it was
the same thing.
Q. Do you recall anything else that was said?
A. No, no more that I can remember."
As above indicated, the General Counsel relies upon Polk's testimony con-
cerning the alleged conduct of Magee, Lafaye, and Freeman as constituting a
demand on the part of the Respondent that Polk give assistance and support
to the Independent for the purpose of inducing and coercing its employees to
become or remain members of, and to give assistance and support to, the
Independent.
As noted above both Magee and Lafaye categorically denied making the
statements attributed to them by Polk, and Freeman gave an entirely different
version to the conversation between him and Polk than was set forth by the latter.
From his obsevation of Magree, Lafaye, and Freeman and from their testimony
the undersigned is of the opinion and therefore finds that the record will not
support the finding that Magee, Lafaye, or Freeman, or either of them sug-
gested or requested that Polk discontinue his A. F. of L. activities or that they
suggested or requested that he aid and assist the Independent anytime between
August 1, 1950, and the date of his discharge October 27, 1950.
The record discloses without dispute that Polk was actively engaged in organ-
izing the Union on behalf of the A. F. or F.; that his superiors became aware of
such activity ; and that there were complaints among the bull gang crew that
Polk was discriminating against some members of the crew by assigning them
to work other than that of unloading ships, an operation that provided for 4
hours' overtime work per shift, with the result that the responsible supervisor
of Respondent determined to and did discharge Polk.
ii The record discloses that some four members of the bull gang complained to Freeman
that Polk in his selection of members of the bull gang to unload ships, an operation that
operated on 12-hour shifts, and thus providing overtime pay for 4 hours per shift,
was discriminating against a number of the members of the bull gang in assigning
them to or refusing to assign them to unloading of ships Freeman in his testimony
denied the testimony of Polk quoted above. He stated in substance that the only matter
be discussed with Polk with reference to trouble was as follows :
I asked Mr Polk what all the disturbance and ill feeling was which was being
created amongst the bull gang crew. Mr Polk gave me an answer to the effect that
"there wasn't anything wrong with the crew down there, that he was not disturbing
them or he was not causing- any dissension amongst the crew ; It was that damned
son-of-a-bitch Mr. Bodner," who was foreman then of the maintenance section of
the construction department He said Mr Bodner was cussing the men and kicking
the men around , and that if we didn 't do somthing about getting rid of Mr. Bodner
the whole bull gang crew was going to go to the A. F. of L.
215233-53-43
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under the circumstances disclosed by the record herein the Respondent was
free to discharge Polk because of his union membership and activities. As
stated in N. L. R. B. v. Edward G. Mudd Mfg. Co, 169 F. 2d 571 (on remand from
the Supreme Court, 322 U. S. 840), Courts stated :
We believe it is clear that Congress intended by the enactment of the Labor
Management Relations Act that employers be free in the future to discharge
supervisors for joining a union, and to interfere with their union activities.
Under somewhat analogous circumstances, the Board has held that the dis-
charge of a supervisor for organizational activities on behalf of the rank-and-
file union violates neither Section 8 (a) (3) nor 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 2
As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Intercity Adver-
tising Company, supra, with reference to one Peeler, a supervisory employee:
"as he was a supervisory employee, he was not protected from discharge because
of union membership or activities."
Conclusions
The foregoing and the record disclose that Lawrence M. Polk, Sr., was a
supervisory employee of the Respondent, U. S. Phosphoric Products Division,
Tennessee Corporation; that to the knowledge of the Respondent' s responsible
officials, Polk engaged in organizational activities on behalf of International
Chemical Workers Union, A. F. of L.; and that by his discharge on October 27,
1950, the Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The
undersigned accordingly recommends that the complaint herein be dismissed
in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Chemical Workers Union, A. F. of L., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. U. S. Phosphoric Products Division, Tennessee Corporation, Respondent
herein, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
3. The Respondent is not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
39 See Accurate Threaded Products Co , 90 NLRB 1364 Alabama Marble Co, 83 NLRB
1047, 1074-1075 ; see also Trt-Pak Machinery Service, Inc, 94 NLRB 1715
GENERAL WAREHOUSEMEN AND EMPLOYEES UNION9 LOCAL 636, AND
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 24 9, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and Roy STONE TRANSFER
CORPORATION. Case No. 6-CD-14. June 11, 1952
Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
99 NLRB No. 111.