Industrial Life and Health Insurance Co.

In the Matter Of INDUSTRIAL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANCE AGENTS UNION #23156, A. F. OF L., SUMTER, S. C. Case No. C-2409-Decided February 9, 1943 Jurisdiction : industrial insurance industry. Unfair Labor Practices. Interference, Re°;tramt, and Coercio b: anti-union statements; interrogation con- cerning union membership and activity; threats of discharge because of union organization; inquiry by respondent's attorney, during preparation of case, concerning union affiliation, which questioning was outside the scope of the issues of the pending proceeding and was made in the presence of representa- tives of management. Descrimination: charges.of, dismissed. Remedial Orders: cease and desist unfair labor practices. DECISION AND ORDER On November 10, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set out in the copy' of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Union filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions. The respond- ent has not excepted to the findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner 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 the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) .of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Industrial Life and Health 47 N L. R. B, No. 52. 395 396 DEOIS1<On'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Insurance Company, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its, employees in the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid. or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its Sumter district office in South Carolina, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is herein ordered to cease and desist; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated against H. D. Creen and J. T. Creen, Jr., within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Ralph L. W'i•ggtns, for the Board. Mr. J. Lon Duckworth, of Atlanta, Ga, for the respondent. Mr. George L Russ, of, Washington, D. C, for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on September 3, 1942, b$, American Federa- tion of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union #23156, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated September 22, 1942, against Industrial Life and Health Insurance 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 Labor Relations Act. 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: (1) on May 16, 1942, discharged FI D. Green and J. T. Green, and has since refused to reinstate them because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union ; (2) from April 1, 1942, to date interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by statements that it was opposed to the Union, that employees would be fired if they became or remained members of the Union, and that the Union would not benefit them; by disparaging union em- ployees and union representatives; by interrogating employee .regarding their union affiliations ; and by attempting to have its employees resign from the Union. INDUSTRIAL LIFE AND HEALTH INSU'RANC'E! COMPANY 397 On September 30, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, in which it denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices and contended that it had dis- charged the Green brothers because of a suit brought by their father against the respondent. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Sumter, South Carolina, on October 22, and 23, 1942, before Will Maslow, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by a lay representative. All of the parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the motions of both the attorney for the Board and the attorney for the respondent to conform the pleadings to the proof, and reserved ruling on a motion made by the respondent to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. That motion is hereby denied. At the close of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument before the Trial Examiner and were given until October 29, 1942, to file briefs. No briefs have been filed. i From the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: ° FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS Or THE RESPONDENT Industrial Life and Health Insurance Company is a Georgia corporation engaged in the general industrial insurance business Its principal office, known as its home office, is in Atlanta, Georgia, but it employs about 1200 agents in-Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Its agents work under and are supervised by district managers, who, in turn, are responsible to state managers, who in turn, are responsible to the home office. All policy claims are passed upon by district managers and all disbursements on such claims are likewise made by the district managers, from premiums, collected in the various districts The remaining unexpended premiums are remitted to the home office: In.1941 the respondent collected $5,973,378 in premiums, of which $G,775,226 was received from states other than the State of Georgia. During that year, the respondent paid out $2,854,000 in claims, of which $2,124,000 was paid to policy- holders located outside the State of Georgia. The respondent had outstanding on December 31, 1941, a total of $135,450,303 in life insurance, of which approximately 75 percent was risk outside of Georgia. The respondent invests its surplus and reserves in governmental securities. It owned at the time of the hearing approximately $6,541,000 of such securities, of which about $1,318,000 were in the form of bonds of the United States Govern- ment, and the remaining $5,223,000 were in the form of bonds of state, county, and municipal subdivisions in six Southern states. The attorney for the respond- ent stated at the hearing that he neither admitted nor disputed that the respondent was subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. The undersigned finds,that the respondent's activities lend support to the com- mercial life of the region in which it operates. This contribution to commerce would, if disturbed, hamper or interfere with the life of that region. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union #23156, A. F of L., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. 398 DEiCi,°I0\S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. The events prior to the organization of the Union On' March 28, 1941, Jack Green, Sr., a former employee of the respondent, instituted a law suit against it, charging that the respondent had fraudulently breached its agreement to pay him a pension if he retied. He asked for $25,000 damages. As soon as the action was commenced, H. T. Dobbs, vice president of the respondent, instructed H. C. Jackson, manager of the respond- ent's west South Carolina division, to discharge H. D and J. T. Green, sons of Jack Green, Sr., who were then employed by the respondent' H. D. Green worked in Sumter, South Carolina, and J. T. Green in Spartanburg, South Carolina. When Ashley Tobias, the attorney handling the Green litigation for the respondent, was told by Dobbs on April 2, 1941, of his plans, he urged him not to discharge the brothers because of the bad impression it might make upon the jury which 'would hear the Green suit. Dobbs agreed to do so.2 One week after his father commenced the action, H D. Green called on H. Q. Jones, his superior and the respondent's district manager in Sumter, South Carolina, and asked whether itowould not be to the respondent's advantage if he were to be transferred away from Sumter to avoid embarrassment arising from his father's suit. Jones replied that he did not see why the lawsuit should n-ake any difference and that he should forget about it. Green, however, insisted that Jones take the matter up with Jackson. A week later H D. Green again asked Jones about the, suit and was told that he would not be held accountable for anything his father did.' The Green suit was heard in Columbia, South Carolina, from March 26 to March 30, 1942, and resulted in -a directed verdict in favor of the respondent. During the trial, Dobbs again discussed the discharge of the Green brothers with his attorneys and was advised to wait until the time to appeal by the plaintiff Green had expired.4 The judgment in favor of the respondent was entered on March 30, 1942. and the time to appeal expired on Aprils 30, 1942, without any notice of appeal being filed by Green. 2. The organization of the Union In the middle of March 1942, the insurance agents of the respondent and of three other insurance companies maintaining district offices in Sumter, South Carolina, began to discuss the formation of a union. On April 6, 1942, Alva Alsbrooks, one of the agents, not employed by the respondent, wrote to the American Federation of Labor requesting information about affiliation. This letter was turned over to George L. Russ, an organizer for the A. F. of L, and on April 16, 1942, Russ was invited to come to Sumter in 2 or 3 weeks to address a meeting of insurance agents. I This finding is based upon the testimony of Dobbs and Jackson Dobbs' uncontra- dicted testimony in addition was that in 1033 he had discharged three employees, although they had worked for the respondent from 20 to 25 yeais , because their first cousin had started a suit against the respondent. 2 These findings are based on the testimony of Tobias, Dobbs, and Jackson 3 Jones testified that "at the time this suit was filed Ali Jackson said;we should let these boys out " He (lid not, however, in his testimony mention the conversations with 11 D. Green ' This finding is based upon the testimony of Dobbs, Jackson, Tobias, Jones, and Shep- ard Nash and F. Lou Duckworth, two other attorneys of the respondent, who-also participated in the discussions with Dobbs 'INDUSTRIAL LITE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY 399 Around April 16, 1942, the first meeting of the agents was held at the home ,of Jack Green , Sr., in Sumter . About 18 agents attended the meeting , including H. D Green. After the meeting H D Greet) and Alsbrooks solicited the agents in Sumter to sign statements that they were interested in a union and wished to hear Russ. Alsbrooks , in addition , collected a fee of $150 from each signer as a pledge, which was later to be refunded . About 10 to 12 employees made such payments. W. A. Boyne, an empfoyee of the respondent who was called to the witness stand by it, attended the first meeting at Green 's house and the next day told IT. Q. Jones, the respondent's district manager in Sumter , that he had done so.' 3. The events in May 1942 On May 6, 1942, IDuckworth, the respondent's Atlanta counsel, drafted two letters which Dobbs signed, addressed to Jones and C D Cothran; the respond- ent's district manager in Spartanburg, directing them to "dispense with the serv- ices" of H D. Green and J T. Green, respectively, "upon receipt of this letter" Upon receipt of Dobbs' letter, Jones showed it to Nash, 'respondent's local counsel, who asked him not to do anything about the discharges until Nash ,could communicate with Jackson e When asked at the hearing why he had taken up the matter with Nash, Jones testified: "Well, lie is the company's at- torney and any legal thing I take up with him." Although Green, Sr, could no, longer appeal, eegotiations were then pending between the attorneys for Green, .Sr, and the respondent, to settle various matters arising out of Green's litiga- tion, but not foreclosed by the verdict in the respondent's favor. Nash then telephoned Jackson and persuaded the latter not to discharge the Green brothers. Jackson. in turn after receiving a call from Nash, telephoned Dobbs and.tlie latter agreed to postpone the discharges. Jackson then telephoned Cothran and transmitted Dobbs' instructions to postpone the discharge until the next week. Nash himself told Jones that Jackson had approved "liolding-up" the discharge until May 16, 1942. On May 8, 1942, a second meeting of the agents was held in the Coca-Cola ,Community House in Sumter, which Russ attended and 'addressed. About 20 agents were there, including H D Green and 7 to 9 other employees of the re- spondent. Application cards' designating 'the Union as a bargaining agent were distributed and were signed by 8 to 10 persons, including H D Green The day after the meeting of May 8, C A Buck, an employee of the respondent, met Jones, his supervisor, and was asked by the latter whether he had attended the meeting "last night" in the community house Buck replied that he had and, after being asked by'Jones what had happened, described the talk of Russ.' b c l:orne testified in addition that Tones replied that this was a free country and lie could do as he pleased In a signed statenxnt, however, which- lie 'submitted to the iespondents attorney while the latter was preparing its, defense, he made no mention of Jones', ieply and'instead stated that Jones made no statement conceinng the Union when told of Boyne's attendance at the meeting Boyne attended anothei union meeting on May 8, 1942, signed an application card, paid dues, of $ 3 and was elected recording secretary of the Union. Ile testified that a week later he changed his mind about the Union Jones in his testiniony'made no mention of the statement about a*"free country." The undersigned, 'observing Boyne's demeanor on the stand, and in view of the above facts, does not credit the remarks attributed to Jones by Boyne. Nash did not remember whetliei lie met Jones by chance on the morning of May 7, or, whethei Jones had Conie'to his'office. 7 Around May 25, 1942, Jones appioached Buick again and stated that he saw no reason why employees of -the respondent should belong- to a union Jones did not deny or dispute L'uck's testmiony.' 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A few days after the meeting of May 8, J. B. Little, another employee of the respondent, was called into the office of Jones, his supervisor, and was asked whether he had joined the Union. When Little answered evasively, Jones re- marked that he could not understand why an employee of the respondent would want to join the Union. Several days later, Little was again called into Jones' office. Jones asked whether Little was one of the leaders of the Union and, be-' fore lie could answer, said: "You had just as well admit it; I know you are. You had better watch your step. They tried to organize a union' in Georgia some years ago and it cost the leading agents their jobs." s _ J. T. Green, Jr., was employed in the Spartanburg office of the respondent, which is about-125 miles from Sumter. He testified, and the undersigned finds, that on week-end visits to Sumter in April 1942, he had discussed the Union with, his brother, H. D Green, Alsbrooks, and another employee, and that at Alsbrook's request, two weeks before May 9, lie had agreed to act temporarily as secretary- treasurer of the new union being formed ° He did not attend the meeting of May 8, but signed a union application card on Saturday, May 9, in Sumter. Returning to Spartanburg on May 11, he discussed unionism there with Felton Jones, a fellow employee and a brother of the Sumter district manager, and told Felton Jones he had joined. Green also discussed the Union that week with two other Spartanburg employees Both Little and Buck testified and the undersigned finds that it was generally known among the respondent's employees prior to May 16, 1942, that H D. Green was a member of the Union. Jones admitted that the Union was"discussed gen- erally in the Sumter office and that he had heard about union meetings before the discharge of H. D. Green He also stated that he had told his superior, I3 C. Jackson; manager of the respondent's west South Carolina division, of the union, talk in his office Jackson also admitted that he heard, in the, middle of April 1942, that the agents were organizing. Dobbs, however, denied any knowledge of union activity in Sumter On Saturday, May 16, 1942, both 'of the Green brothers were discharged, H. D. Green by Jones in Sumter, and J T. Green, Jr., by Cothran, in Spartanburg. That same day, Little resigned after refusing to accept a transfer to Greenville, in South Carolina, directed by Jones 10 The record does not disclose whether Jones or Cothran received new in- structions or acted upon the basis of the instructions received on May 7, 1942. 8 Jones denied questioning Little on either occasion , but the undersigned does not credit " his denial , particularly in view of Jones' discussions about the Union with other employees ' 9J T. Green , Jr., was elected as the permanent financial secretary of the Union at a meeting bn May 22, 1942. to J B Little, as a result of an injury to his back which made riding in an automobile painful, was transferred to a collection route in town which he could cover by walking.' Thereafter, sometime in January or Febiuary 1942, Jones required him to work one day- a week in the rural areas, which necessitated automobile driving. Little complained' about this one day of driving and asked for an all-walking route. On May 16, Jones advised Little that be was being transferred to an all-walking route in Greenville, South Carolina, 150 miles away Little testified that he asked Jones why he was being trans- ferred to Greenville and what sort of a job he would have, protesting that his child lacked a few weeks of finishing school, and that Jones replied he did not know and that he would be discharged unless he accepted the transfer . Jones denied that Little had said anything on being informed of the transfer , except that he wished to discuss .the matter with his wife . Little retused to„'accept the transfer. and resigned. On May 18, 1942, the Union wrote to the respondent accusmg,it of discharging II. D. Green, J. T Green, and J. B Little. The charge filed by the Union on May 28, 1942, however, made no mention of little, nor does the complaint specifically allege any dis- crimination against him. The undersigned does not find it necessity to resolve the conflict in the testimony as to the Jones-Little conversation on May 16 desciibed above. INDUSTRIAL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURAN'C'E' COMPANY, 401 Nash testified that he could not remember the date when the settlement negoti- ations had broken down and whether he had ever notified the respondent of the break-down." Cothran testified and the undersigned finds that in discharging J. T. Green, Jr:, on May 16, 1942, he told him that he was being discharged because his work was unsatisfactory. Cothran also admitted that on June'15, 1942, he had told the Board's Field Examiner who was investigating the case that he had dis- charged Green without the "company" having any knowledge of his act. Cothran testified further that he had lied to J. T. Green, Jr., although he knew the true reason for the discharge, because "as manager of the district I thought I was supposed to do it." He admitted further that in his talk with the Board's Field Examiner, he "gave him just as evasive information as I could at that time, to keep from giving information " He denied, however, that he had any knowledge of the Union's activity in Sumter. On May 16; 1942, Jones called Buck into his office and, .after telling him that he had let Little and H. D Green go, asked Buck what was wrong with the men in the office. When Buck replied it was the "money situation," Jones disagreed, and then said : "I am going to get to the bottom of this, if I have to let every 'man go." 12 H. D. Green had worked for the respondent for 8 years. At, the time of his discharge he was 28 years old, married, and lived apart from his father. J. T. Green, Jr., had worked for the respondent for 8 years. At the time of the discharge he was 31 years old, married, and lived apart from his father. 4 The questioning of employees by the respondent's attorney In the course of his preparation for the hearing in this proceeding, F. Lon Duckworth, the respondent's attorney, interviewed some of its employees and obtained signed statements from them. Buck was interviewed in the Sumter office in the presence of Jones and Jackson. Duckworth pi efaced his questioning of Buck by stating that it made no difference to him or to the respondent whether he was a member of the Union and that he would like to have a statement from Buck . Buck then volunteered the information that he was a member of • the Union and so wrote on his statement.' Buck also was asked by Duckworth at this conference whether he recognized the Union as his bargaining agent. Boyne, who was interviewed by Duckworth the night before the hearing, was asked, among other things, whether he was still a member of the Union." The questions asked by Duckworth of Buck whether he' recognized the Union as his bargaining agent and of Boyne whether he was still a member of. the Union, do not relate to any of the issues in this proceeding and exceed the scope of the legitimate preparation of the respondent's defense. Such questioning, especially when conducted in the presence of an employee's superiors, interferes with, restrains, and coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act.14 I 'Duckworth testified that on May 6, 1942 when he had drafted the dismissal letters he knew that there was some talk of settlement but thought that the proposals of the plaintiff, Jack Green , Sr, were unreasonable 12 Jones testified that he recalled all of the conversation except the remark about firing everyone. - v Duckworth , in his direct examination of. Boyne, did not ask whether Boyne was a member of the Union or had ever been. 14 Matter of Richard F. Kline, etc., 39 N. L. it. B. 1047, 1057, Matter of F. W. Wool- worth, etc., 25 N. L. R. B. 1362 , modified in other respects in F. W. Woolworth Co. v. N. L. R B. 121 F. ( 2d) 658 (C C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. Stone, 125 F. (2d) 752 (C. C. A. 7), certiorari denied October 12, 1942. 513024-43-vol 47-26 402 DE'CISlONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. Concluding findings Regardless of how arbitrary or unjust the discharges of H. D Green and J. T.•Green, Jr., were, unless the respondent was motivated in whole or in part of their union activity, or such activity accelerated the action taken by the respondent, the discharges do not violate the Act. While certain suspicions cling to the respondent's defense, the undersigned does not find that the discharges mere motivated by or accelerated because of union activity 1" i The undersigned accordingly will recommend that the allegations of the com- plaint relating to the discharge of H. D. and J. 'T Green, Jr., be dismissed. By Jones' questioning of Buck on May 9, 1942, and his remarks to Buck on May 25, :1942; by his questioning of and his threats to Little, and by Duckworth's' questioning of Buck and Boyne as to their continued membership in the Union, the respondent has, interfered with, restrained, and- coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. - , IT. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LA71,0R PRACTICES -UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce tanong the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing-commerce and the free flow of commerce.'° V THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, in the form of posting of notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On the'basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONcrUSroNS or L^,w• 1 Anieiican Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents ,Union X23156, A. F. of L, Sumter, South Carolina, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section-7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 'S Thus, it seems strange,that Jones and Cothran should have discharged the Green brothers simultaneously on Dlay 16 without receiving new instructions; that J B Little was to-be transferred on the same day that the Green N others were discharged ; that Cothran twice stated that J. T Green was discharged because of incompetency ; that although the discharges were postponed once because of settlement negotiations, there- after they took 'place without any inquiry by Jones, Cothran, Jackson, or Duckworth as to the status of the negotiations. _ 10 Y. L R. B v Bank of America (C. C A '9), decided September 14, 1942, 11 L. R. R. --119 ; Hatter of John Hancock Mutual Life I,nsniance Company, etc, 26 N L R B 1024, Hatter•of Life Insurance Company of Virgniia, etc, 29 N L. R B. 246; Matter of Supreme liberty Late Insurance Company, etc, 32 N L R. B 94; Hatter of Colonial Life Insurance Company -of America, etc, 42 N L R 'B 1177 INDUSTRIAL LIiFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY 403 4. By its discharge of and refusal to reinstate II. D Green and J '1` Green, Jr., -the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of .Section 8 (3) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions ,of law, the under- signed recommends that the Industrial Life and Health Insurance Company, kits officers, agents, successors,, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor oiganizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of t he Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its Sumter district office in South Carolina, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (I) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it has been recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 of these recommendations ; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging and refusing to reinstate A. D. Green and J T. Green, Jr., be dismissed. It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notify said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board-Series 2, as amended, effective October 14, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations,^file with the Board, Shorehain Building, Washington, D C , an original and four copies, of a statement in writing; setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro- ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as it relies upon, together -with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally- before"the Board, request theretor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days fi om, the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. SAMUEL EDES, Trial Eaai4mer. -Dated November 10, 1942