Wilkening Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1201 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1201
purpose of dealing with fish buyers on the one hand , and as collective bargain-
ing representative in their dealings with their respective employees on the other
hand, and by being the recipient of financial and other aid from the said owners
and captains, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
10. Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (3) or 8 (b) (2) of.the Act
with respect to Abelsen's employment , as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 416, CIO. Case No. 4-CA-627. September 23, 1952
Decision and Order
On April 25, 1952, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate 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 forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed exceptions and briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the Trial Examiner 's rulings 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 briefs and exceptions, and the entire record in
the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions, cor-
rections,2 and modifications. -
The Board, following a hearing upon a petition filed under Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the Act, ordered an election by secret ballot held in
an appropriate units of the Respondent's employees in order to
determine a collective bargaining representative 4 The election was
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson]
'We note and correct the following Inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report :
(1) The Union was certified by the Board on September 6, 1951, not on September 7,
1951; (2) the Respondent's first refusal to bargain occurred on September 13, 1951, not
on September 12, 1951; (3) the phrase, "including the employees listed in Appendix A"
should be included in the description of the appropriate unit. These errors do not affect
the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclusions nor our concurrence therein.
3 The Respondent does not, as the Trial Examiner indicates in his report, take issue
in the present proceeding with the appropriateness of the unit as found by the Board.
193 NLRB No 171.
100 NLRB No. 197.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conducted, and the tally of ballots showed that 28 employees voted
for, and 26 employees against, the Union. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed objections to the conduct of the election, which set forth
in detail its grounds for objections. The Regional Director for
the Fourth Region thereupon thoroughly investigated the matter and
issued his report and recommendation on objections. He found that
the Re'spondent's objections raised neither substantial nor material
issues, and recommended that the Board certify the Union. The
Board, after considering the matter, issued a Supplemental Decision
and Direction .-5 The Regional Director thereafter issued a supple-
mental report and recommendation on objections, to which the Re-
spondent filed a comment in which it requested the Board to order
a new election. After careful consideration of the entire record in the
matter, including the Employer's original objections and comment, the
Board' issued its Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.s The Respondent then filed a petition for reconsid-
eration wherein it again set forth all the facts and issues of the entire
matter, and wherein, for the first time, it requested that a formal hear-
ing be held.7 Again the Board carefully reviewed the Employer's peti-
tion and the entire record in the case, and thereafter denied the petition
for reconsideration.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent refused to bargain
with the Union in violation of the Act. As an affirmative defense,
the Respondent urges, inter alia, that it was not, and could not have
been, guilty of a refusal to bargain as the Union never established
a clear right to represent its employees "because of the closeness of
the result of the election and the confusion that attended the election,"
and, therefore, that the Board erred in certifying the Union. We
find, as we did in the representation proceeding, that these contentions
are without merit. The Respondent also urges that, as no formal
hearing was held to take evidence as to the incidents of the election
to which it had objected, it should now be given the opportunity, as
a matter of due process, to introduce evidence concerning such in-
cidents in this complaint proceeding.8
The instant case is not one in' which the Respondent attempts to
introduce additional evidence newly discovered, or evidence earlier
unavailable; nor does the Respondent contend that the Board failed
to consider certain evidence which had been presented.
6 95 NLRB No. 13.
6 96 NLRB 3.
T The Respondent 's petition for reconsideration was dated September 14, 1951 , the day
after its first refusal to bargain with the certified union.
8 The Respondent had repeatedly urged the Board to set aside the election , and did not
urge that a formal hearing on the matters urged in its objections be held until after the
Board had certified the Union.
WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1203
In the instant situation, following the representation case hearing,
the Respondent submitted certain statements to the Board concerning
the conduct of the election and urged that the election results were
not conclusive. We examined those statements and accepted as true
most of the Respondent's allegations as to what took place.- With-
respect to those allegations which raised factual issues, we found the
Regional Director's substantially uncontradicted report of his in-
vestigation adequate to resolve the conflict. We then concluded, in
accordance with our Rules and Regulations," that no further formal
hearing was necessary and that there was no warrant for setting aside
the election. We accordingly certified the Union. Having again
reviewed the entire case in the instant complaint proceeding, we are
of the same opinion. We accordingly find that the denial of an
opportunity to the Respondent to submit proof in support of allega-
tions which the Board has already on numerous occasions either
accepted as true or resolved on the basis of the substantially uncon-
tradicted report of our Regional Director's investigation, is not a
deprivation of due process.1°
We therefore find, like the Trial Examiner, that by refusing to
bargain with the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Wilkening Manu-
facturing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 416,
9 See. 102.61 (b) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 6
(effective March 1, 1951, at the time the events hbrein occurred ) provided: "If exceptions
are filed, either to the report on challenged ballots, objections , or both if it be a consoli-
dated report , and it appears to the Board that such exceptions do not raise substantial
and material issues with respect to the conduct or results of the election, the Board may
decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case.
If it appears to the Board that such exceptions raise substantial and material factual
issues, the Board may direct the regional director or other agent of the Board to issue
and cause to be served upon the parties , a notice of hearing on said exceptions before a
hearing officer."
15In„the -instant bearing the records of the representation proceeding were received
in evidence . (those records include the Respondent 's objection to the conduct of the elec-
tion , the Regional Director 's report and recommendation on objections , the Board 's supple-
mental decision and direction , the Regional Director 's supplemental report and recom-
mendation , the Respondent 's comment to the Regional Director 's supplemental report and
recommendation , the Board' s second supplemental decision and certification of representa-
tives, the Respondent 's petition for reconsideration of the Board's decision, and the Board's
order denying the petition. All documents now made a part of the record, and which
will be incorporated in the record before a court, fully set forth what the Respondent
now desires to show by the testimony of witnesses,
227260-53-vol. 100-77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all its employees in
the following unit :
All office and clerical employees of the Respondent at its Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, operations, including the employees listed in
Appendix A, attached hereto, and the industrial engineer clerk, but
excluding guards, truck drivers, the warehouse multigraph machine
operators, the secretaries to the president, treasurer, and chief ac-
countant, to the vice president and general manager, to the vice
president in charge of sales, and to the personnel manager, the typist
clerk in the office of the production manager, the engineer draftsman,
the draftsman, the tracer, the gauge checker, the test mechanic, the
shipping clerk, the receiving and stores clerk, the expediter, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any matter interfering with the efforts of said Union to
bargain collectively with the Respondent on behalf of the employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 416,
CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appro-
priate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, operations, copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix B." n Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth-
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including places where notices
to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material:
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
Accounting Department-Bookkeeping Machine Operator, Comp-
tometer Operators-Clerks, Original Entry Bookkeeper, Payroll
Machine Operator.
A' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there Oal1 be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1205
P. B. X.-Telephone Operator, Relief Operator and File Clerk.
Purchasing Department-Typist Clerk.
Sales & Order Department-Stenographer, Ediphone Typist,
Stenographer (Ediphone), Ediphone Typist.
Advertising Department-Typist Clerks, Clerks, Stenographer.
Industrial Sales & General--Office Boy, Typist Clerks, Clerk.
Multigraph & Printing-Vari-typer and Multigraph.
Safety d Stores-Stenographer and Cafeteria Supervisor.
Quality Control-Clerks.
Production Control Office-Typist Clerks, Inventory Clerk-
Machine Operator.
Payroll Department-Timekeeper, Comptometer Operator.
Quality Control (Foundry) -Clerk.
Foundry 0 ffice-Typist Clerks.
Warehouse-Comptometer and Billing Machine Operator, Clerks,
Inventory-Machine Operator, Inventory Clerk-Manual, Billing Ma-
chine Operators, Telephone Operator, Typist Clerk.
Engineering Department-Secretary, Specifications Clerks, Typist
Clerks.
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board. and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon requested with UNITED AuTo-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 416, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
our employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment; and, if an understanding is reached, we will
embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is:
All office and clerical employees at our Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, operations including the employees listed in Ap-
pendix A, attached hereto, and the industrial engineer clerk,
but excluding guards, truck drivers, the warehouse multi-
graph machine operators, the secretaries to the president,
treasurer, and chief accountant, to the vice president and gen-
eral manager, to the vice president in charge of sales, and
to the personnel manager, the typist clerk in the office of
the production manager, the engineer draftsman, the drafts-
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man, the tracer , the gauge checker , the test mechanic, the
shipping clerk , the receiving and stores clerk , the expediter,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the above Union
to bargain with us, and we will not refuse to bargain collectively
with that Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit set forth above.
WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated--------------------By-----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and inust not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed by United Automobile , Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 416, CIO, herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for its Fourth Region ( Philadelphia , Pennsylvania ), issued
a complaint dated February 27, 1952, against Wilkening Manufacturing Com-
pany, herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and the amended charge together with a notice of
hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
In substance the complaint alleges that the Respondent , since September 12,
1951, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its employees in an appropriate unit, and thereby has inter-
fered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by the Act. In substance, the answer ( and amended answer) of the
Respondent denies that the unit alleged is appropriate . Affirmatively , it is the
Respondent 's position that the Board erred in its determination of the appro-
priate unit in Case No. 4-RC-994 2 and that it may not now be required to bargain
as to a unit which is not appropriate , and erroneously determined.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Louis Plost, the duly designated
Trial Examiner , on March 31, 1952, at Philadelphia , Pennsylvania.
At the hearing all parties were represented , were afforded full opportunity to
be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues , to argue orally on the record , and to file briefs and proposed find-
ings and conclusions. The undersigned granted a motion to amend the com-
plaint in order to correct an inadvertent omission and granted a motion to
file an amended answer . The parties argued orally on the record . A date was
1 The original charge was dated and filed October 22, 1951. The amended charge was
dated and filed November 13, 1951.
2 96 NLRB 3.
WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1207
fixed for the filing of briefs and proposed findings and conclusions with the
undersigned.8 A brief has been received from the Respondent.
At the close of the hearing the undersigned granted a motion by the General
Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to names, dates,
spelling, and like matters.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue
of the laws of the State of Delaware, is engaged and, at all times material
herein, has been engaged, at plants located at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and
at Toronto, Canada, in the manufacture of piston rings.
In the course and conduct of its operations at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
plant during the year ending this date, the Respondent purchased raw materials
valued at in excess of $500,000, over 80 percent of which, in value, was received
directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In the course and conduct of its operations at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
plant during the year ending this date, Respondent caused to be manufactured
products valued in excess of $3,000,000, approximately 95 percent of which, in
value, was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local 416, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act, and admits employees of the Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and the Union's representation therein
There is no dispute that following a hearing upon a petition duly filed under
Section 9 (c) of the Act, and docketed in the office of the Fourth Region of the
Board as Case No. 4-RC-994, the Board on March 29, 1951, ordered an election
by secret ballot held in an appropriate unit for collective bargaining among
certain of the Respondent's employees in order to determine a collective bargain-
ing representative, the unit being described as follows :
All office and clerical employees at Respondent's Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania operations, including the industrial engineer clerk, but excluding-
guards, truck drivers, the warehouse multigraph machine operators, the
secretaries to the president, treasurer, and chief accountants, to the vice-
president and general manager, to the vice president in charge of sales,
and to the personnel manager, the typist clerk in the office of the produc-
tion manager, the engineer draftsman, the draftsman, the tracer, the gauge
checker, the test mechanic, the shipping clerk, the receiving and stores clerk,
the expediter, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2, subsection (11)
of the Act.
The date for filing briefs, etc., was extended by the Chief Trial Examiner to April 22.
1952.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The election was conducted on April 27, 1951; the employees selected the
Union. Thereafter on May 1, the Respondent filed objections to the conduct
of the election, setting forth the grounds for its objections in detail ; on May
28, after conducting an investigation on the Respondent 's objection , the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region issued his report and recommendations on objec-
tions wherein he reported that the Respondent's objections raised no substantial
nor material issues and recommended that the Board certify the Union. After
the issuance of a Supplemental Decision and Direction and an order amending
the same by the Board, the Regional Director on August 6, issued a supplemental
report and recommendation on objections to which the Respondent on August
7, 1951, filed its comment.
On September 7, 1951, the Board issued its Second Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives wherein the entire matter and all the issues
therein raised were treated in detail and the Union was certified. On September
14, the Respondent filed with the Board a petition for reconsideration wherein
it argued the entire matter and set forth all the facts and issues in detail.
On October 4, 1951, the Board denied the Respondent's petition for reconsid-
eration.
The undersigned being bound by the Board's determination and upon the
entire record in the case, considered as a whole, finds that at all times material
herein a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining among the Respondent's
employees, effected by the instant proceeding, consisted of the unit hereinabove
described , and further finds in accordance with the Board 's determination that
the said unit was represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the
Union.
2. The refusal to bargain
All the parties joined in the following stipulation :
That on or about September 12, 1951, by telephone, confirmed by letter
on the same day, Union Representative Edward G. Wilms, acting on behalf
of the Union, asked the Respondent's Vice-President, D. A. Cowhig, acting
on behalf of the Respondent, for a bargaining conference, which request was
rejected by Mr. Cowhig in a telephone conservation with Mr. Wilms held on
the following day, and that by telephone conversation held on October 8,
1951, as confirmed by letter dated October 15, 1951, Union Representative
Harold Rochelle, acting for the Union, asked Mr. Cowhig for a negotiating
meeting which request was rejected during that same conversation, and that
at no time up to and including the present date has the Respondent been
willing to bargain with the Union, the exclusive bargaining agent for the
employees involved in this matter.
The Respondent contends now, in effect, that it cannot be required to bargain
with the Union for the reason that the Board erred in certifying the Union and
further contended at the hearing that it be permitted to retry the representation
matter (4-RC-994) in order to preserve an effective challenge of the Board's
action for future court appeal.
The Respondent admitted that all testimony to be offered was the same as had
been previously urged by it to the Board and passed upon in the representation
proceeding.
The undersigned refused to accept testimony on matters raised in the repre-
sentation matter (4-RC-994) and suggested that the Respondent preserve its
position by an offer of proof. The offer was made and rejected by the under-
signed who then called attention that the Board's Rules permitted an appeal
directly to the Board from the undersigned's adverse ruling. The Respondent
failed to so appeal the ruling.
WILKENING MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1209
The Respondent adduced evidence of matters occurring after the Board's
certification of the Union.
David A. Cowhig, vice president and general manager of the Respondent,
testified that between the date of the representation election, April 27, 1951, and
the Union's request to bargain, September 12, 1951, 10 of the Respondent's em-
ployees who had voted in the election left the Respondent's employ; that between
September 12 and October 8, 1951, 4 additional employees quit.
The undersigned does not consider that the above testimony, which he credits,
presents any facts which in any way effect the Respondent's duty to bargain with
the certified Union representing its employees. The undersigned so finds.
The parties stipulated that on October 21, 1951, an individual employee of the
Respondent filed a decertification petition with the Board's Regional Office
seeking to decertify the Union. The petition was dismissed by the Regional
Director.' On January 25, 1952, a petition for review of this action was filed
with the Board. The appeal was denied by the Board, March 3.
The undersigned finds that the filing of the decertification petition did not in
any way affect the Respondent's duty to bargain with the Union 6
The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that on September 13, 1951, and
at all times since, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the hereinabove de-
scribed appropriate unit, and that by such refusal the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE 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, trafc, 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
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
by refusing to bargain collectively with the designated representative of its
employees. It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and from like and related conduct. It will further be recommended that the
Respondent bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned make the following:
CONCLUSIONS' OF LAW
1. Wilkening Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 416, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
3. All office and clerical employees at Respondent's Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, operations, including the industrial engineer clerk, but excluding guards,
truck drivers, the warehouse multigraph machine operators, the secretaries to
4 4-RD-75.
6 See N. L. R. B v. Sanson Hosiery Mills, 195 F . 2d 350 (C. A. 5).
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the president, treasurer , and chief accountants , to the vice president and general
manager, to the vice president in charge of sales , and to the personnel manager,
the typist clerk in the office of the production manager , the engineer draftsman,
the draftsman , the tracer , the gauge checker , the test mechanic , the shipping
clerk, the receiving and stores clerk , the expediter, and all supervisors as defined
in Section 2, subsection (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 416, CIO, was on September 6, 1951 , and at all times since has
been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and after September 12, 1951 , to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice the Respondent has been and now is
interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8. (a) (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Boss OVERALL CLEANERS and ODDIS ROGERS
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 268, CIO and
ODDIS ROGERS . Cases Nos. 21-CA-1097 and 21-CB-351. Septem-
ber 23,1952
Decision and Order
On January 22, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support of their exceptions.
The Board 1 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-
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Murdock,
and Styles].
100 NLRB No. 199.