The Denver Tent and Awning Co.

In the Matter of THE DENVER TENT AND AWNING Co. and WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS UNION No. 217, I. L. W. U. Case No. C-0413.-Decided February 15, 1943 Jurisdiction : canvas products manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: promulgated and enforcement of rule -prohibiting solicitation Qf any kind on company premises at commencement of union's organizational campaign. Discrimination: discharge for violation of no-solicitation rule by an\ employee who solicited for union on "free" time on company premises. Remedial Orders : discriminatorily discharged employee not, desirous of rein- statement awarded back pay from date of discharge to date she secured other employment. DECISION AND ORDER On November 11, 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 respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hear- ing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Re- port, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except in the following respect : Since Mrs. Bowers testified, that she was employed elsewhere and did not desire reinstatement, we shall order that the respondent make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination, by payment to her of a sum equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date upon which she seeured,a position with the company by which she was employed at the time of the hearing, less her net earnings during said period, rather than by payment,'as recom- 47 N. L. R. B., No. 76. 586 -THE DENVER TENT AND AWNING CO. 58,7 mended by the Trial Examiner, of a sum equal to the amount she normally would have earned as. wages from the date of her discharge to the date of her testimony at the hearing. 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, The Denver Tent and Awn- ing Co., Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : J. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union, No. 217, I. L. W. U., affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization of its em- ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and ten- ure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment, be- cause of their membership or activity in such labor organization, or any other labor organization; •(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of 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 activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, 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) Make whole Mrs. Sidney Bowers for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of her discharge to the date upon which she secured a position "with the, company by which she was employed at the time of the hearing,. less her net earnings during such period; (b) 'Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Arapa- hoe Street and Welton Street plants in Denver, Colorado, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respond- ent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this, Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of the Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union 5$$ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No. 217; I. L. W. U., affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, and _ that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of his membership or activity on behalf of that organization ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY concurring specially : I concur with the,holding, but feel that exception must be taken to some of the observations of the Trial, Examiner. A rule forbidding solicitation upon company time',and property is not, per se, an,interference with the right to self-organization, since it is a reasonable method of averting disruption of production. This Board has impliedly recognized that the control of, union solicitation in a plant during working hours is within the province of the employer; since in numerous cases 1 the Board has deemed permission to engage in such activities on company time and property to be an illegal method of assisting a union.' As the rule,was applied in this case, however, it seemed to go beyond the bounds of reasonable plant discipline, since the solicitation which was the basis of the discharge occurred on the employee's own time before and after work and during the luncheon and rest periods. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Willard Y. Morris, for the Board. Mr. Samuel M. Goldberg , of Denver , Colo, for the respondent. Mr. Charles L. Binna, of Denver, Colo., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on August 17, 1942, by Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union No. 217, I. L. W. U, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board ,, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region (Denver, Colorado); issued its complaint, dated October 19, 1942, against The Denver Tent and Awning Co., herein . called the respondent, alleging thfit ' the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within . the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and ' See Matter of Food Machinery Corporation and International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L , 41 N L R B 1428 ; Matter of Metal Mouldings Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 39 N L. R B 107 ; Matter of Sanco Piece Dye Works, Inc, William F. Larkin and Federation of Dyers, Finishers , Printers & Bleachers of America, et at, 38 N L R B 690 ; Matter of Gcrniain Secd and Plant Company and International Broth,rhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpcre of America, Local No. 595, AFL, 37 N L R B 1090 ; Matter of The Carborunc'um Company and United Mine,Workers of America, District 50, affiliated with ,the C 1 0 , 36 N L R B 710 ; Matter of Standard Steel Works Company and Steel Workers Organizing Comnuttee, on behalf of Lodge No 1940, Amalgamated Assn. of Iron , Steel & Tin Workers` o f North America, 26 N. L R B. 447; Matter of. Indianapolis Power & Light Company and Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120. affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , '25 N L R B ' 193 ; -and Matter of Triplex Screw Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1583, 25 N L. R. B. 1126 THE DENVER TENT AND AWNING' CO. 589 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 bearing, were iliily served upon the respondent and the Unioii With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance. that the respondent (1) on or about August 13 , 19l2, promulgated a rule pro- hibiting solicitation on its premises in order to frustrate the self -organization of its employees , in violation of Section 8'(l) of the Act; and (2), on'or about August 15, 1942, discharged (Mrs ) Sidney Bowers because she joined and assisted the Union, and thereby violated Section 8 (3) of the Act. At the beginning of the hearing the respondent 'filed an answer admitting the allegations with respect to its business , but denying all of the unfair labor prac- tices The answer further affirmatively averred that the respondent posted a sign prohibiting solicitation of any kind on its premises in order to secure effi- ciency, harmony, h ad uninterrupted production of materials for the United States Army, and that Bowers, with full knowledge of this rule, deliberately violated the rule and was discharged because of such violation. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Denver , Colorado , on October 29, 1942, before the undersigned , Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by a representative . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties . At the conclusion of the hear- ing counsel for the Board and for the respondent argued orally on the record. -Although the parties were advised of their right to file briefs , no briefs ' were filed. 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 The Denver Tent and Awning Co. is a Colorado corporation having its office in Denver, Colorado, where it also operates two plants, known as. the Arapahoe Street plant and the Welton Street plant.. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale, at wholesale and retail, of tents, awnings, and miscellaneous canvas products Dul ing the 12 months ending 'in the latter part of October 1942, the respondent sold products valued at approximately $150,000 from its Arapahoe Street plant, 'approximately 40 percent of which was shipped to custoniers outside the State of Colorado At its Welton Street plant, which began operations on June 15, 1942, the respondent manufactures tents for the United States Army exclusively. Over 50 percent of these tents are shipped to points outside the State of Colorado. Over 90 percent of the .raw materials purchased for manufacture at both its plants are shipped to Colorado fi om points .outside the State of Colorado The respondent admits that it is engaged-in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Warehousemen and Distribution Workers Union No 217, I. L. W. U.,2 affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. ' These findings are based upon a stipulation entered into between counsel for the Board and for the respondent. I B International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union I 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The'discharge of Mrs. Sidney Bowers; interference, restraint, and coercion Bowers was employed by the respondent on July 23, 1942, as a sewing machine operator at its Welton Street plant, which/had then been in operation a little over a month. There had been no union activity at either plant prior to her employment' Bowers had joined the Union on April 6, 1942, while working for another company. About July 30, Bowers began to solicit. the employees at the Welton Street plant on behalf of the Union. Between the end of July and August 13, prior to the posting of the notice against solicitation, hereinafter described, Bowers secured the memberships of 14 of the respondent's employees. She solicited some of these persons in the plant before working hours and during the lunch and rest periods.° Others signed their membership cards outside the plant. None signed during working periods. On or about August 5, outside of working hours, Bowers distributed copies of a C. I. O. paper on the sidewalk in front of the Welton Street plant, and she also placed some copies on the table in the rest room and on the sewing machines. The first union meeting of the respondent's employees was held on August 6. About August 7, during one of the rest periods, Bowers asked Julia Lowe, her forelady, if she was interested in the Union. Lowe made no reply. About August 12, at the end of the working day, Bowers again distributed the C. I. O. paper on the sidewalk in front of the plant. While Bowers was thus occupied, Superin- tendent Bunn looked out of the plant doorway. There'is no evidence, however, that he saw what Bowers was distributing. On August 12, Bowers asked several employees to come to a union meeting the following day. This occurred in the rest room before 7 a. m. before work began, and during the lunch period. The same morning, before starting to work, Bowers likewise placed handbills announcing the meeting on the table in the rest room where it was customary for the employees to eat lunch. And at the end of her shift at 3: 30 p m. she placed handbills on the sewing machines on the ground floor of the plant e On the morning of August 13, the following printed notice appeared on the respondent's bulletin boards in both plants : 7 NOTICE Solicitation of any kind on these premises is strictly forbidden. Violation of this rule will be cause for dismissal. Bowers admitted that later the same day, while on the premises but before working hours, two employees handed her union membership application cards which they had previously signed, and that she secured two more cards in the 1 plant during the lunch period. She also discussed with employees during the S The Arapahoe Street plant had been in existence about 50 years 4 Hereafter , when the year is not given, reference is to 1942. 5 There was a 30 minute lunch period and two rest periods, one being a 10 minute period 4n, the middle of the morning , and the other a 10 minute period in the middle of the afternoon. 9 The Welton Street plant consists of an old garage All the manufacturing operations are performed on the ground floor in a single room 125 feet long and 75 feet wide. 7 It was stipulated between the parties that 3 notices were delivered to the respondent by the printer on Aueust 10, 3 days before they were .posted . No reason was advanced for tl'e respondent 's failure to post them as soon as received Brooks testified that the notices were ordered from the printer 3 to 7 days before they were posted. The printer , though available , did not testify. THE DENVER TENT AND AWNING CO. 591 lunch period the union meeting which was to be held that evening. These con- versations took place on benches inside the plant where the employees, sometimes ate their lunch. During the afternoon rest period of'August 13; she likewise gave out two or three "membership cards" to fellow employees while they were standing around the room where the work was performed. On the morning of August 14,' before 7 a. m, Bowers distributed union buttons in the plant to the employees who, had joined the Union, and, at the request of several employees . who had not yet joined, handed them membership application cards.' The em- ployees who had received buttons all wore them in the plant on August 14. At no time on August 13 or 14 did any officer or supervisory employee complain to Bowers about her union activities.' On August 14, two of the employees whom Bowers had solicited informed Super- intendent Bunn that Bowers had asked them to join the Union. Bunn thereupon told B. H. Brooks, vice president,' treasurer, and manager of the respondent, of the solicitation. Brooks then consulted Samuel Goldberg, the respondent's attor- ney, as to what action he should take. Goldberg advised him that the rule was not in violation of the Act, and that he should discharge Bowers if he intended to enforce the rule. Brooks then secured through Bunn statements from the two girls who had been solicited. On Saturday, August 15, without seeing Bowers or making any further inquiries, Brooks wrote to Bowers that she was "herewith discharged" for violationg the notice. Bowers, who did not work on August 15, received the letter the next day. The sole issue is whether the respondent promulgated and enforced the rule prohibiting solicitation on its premises in order to frustrate employee self-organi- zation, as the complaint alleges, or whether the respondent's only purpose was to 'maintain harmony and efficient production, as the respondent contends. Brooks testified as follows as to the purpose of the respondent in posting,the notice: "We have always had a rule that the employees should pay attention to their duties while they are on the job while on the premises. We have never allowed any solicitation of the employees of any kind while on the job. We were having a good deal of difficulty on Welton Street getting our factory rolling. I happened to think one day that the first thing I knew there would be different kinds of solicitation up there so I had those signs painted and put up to avoid all sorts of solicitation whatever might come up .. . The purpose of the notice was so "the employees wouldn't be bothered during their rest periods or during their work or any other time by any solicitation that might detract from their ability. They are most of them on sewing machines. 'They have got to have all their mind on their work very closely when they go to that, and, I didn't want any solicitation there that would distract the employees . . . I didn't give the union a thought. I put" a notice up at the Arapahoe Street plant "at the same time." 10 [Italics supplied. ] 8 Out of a total of about 50 persons working in the Welton Street plant during the first half of August,*' 25 joined the Union ; of these, Bowers secured 19. Five of these persons joined between the time the notice was posted on August 13 and the end of the day shift on August 14, the last day that Bowers worked for the respondent. Up to the date of the bearing, no others had joined g Bowers testified and the undersigned finds that she did not know that the rule applied to employees while on their lunch or rest periods. 10 Brooks further testified that prior to August 13. at the Arapahoe Street plant, the 'respondent did not allow outsiders therein and prohibited solicitation by insurance men, magazine salesmen and others, though no rule, to that effect was posted prior to August 13. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - It is undisputed that employees at the Welton Street plant were permitted to talk freely among themselves during their rest and lunch periods. When asked ,whether conversations as to other matters, "besides solicitation" were "likely to upset' the employees, Brooks replied that "Politics might do it," but that "ordi- 'nary conversation" would not. Brooks testified that he knew of no solicitation of any kind at the Welton Street plant before the notice was posted. He maintained that he had no knowl- edge of the union activities there either at the time the notices were ordered printed or when they were posted. The undersigned does not credit his testimony ,concerning the union activities. Bowers had been openly engaged in activities on behalf of the Union both inside and at the entrance to the plant for at least a week prior to the ordering of the notices Although Brooks' office is in the Arapahoe Street building, Superintendent Bunn and Forelady Lowe oversee the work at the -Welton Street plant and occupy an office on a balcony overlooking, the room where all the manufacturing takes place. This office has glass windows overlooking the room where the employees work. Neither Bunn nor Lowe testi- fied. About 50 employees worked in this building in early August. It is highly unlikely that in such a small plant where the employees all work together in the -same room, that the supervisory employees remained unaware of the unconcealed and readily apparent union activity that was taking place in the plant through- out the period from July 30 to August 13 Furthermore, Bowers had asked Lowe on August 6, about the time the notices were ordered from the printer, if she was interested in the Union. The undersigned finds that the respondent was aware, prior to the time the printing was ordered, that there were union activities in the plant. , Bowers was the only one who engaged in soliciting during the first half of August 11 There is no evidence that these activities •ifnpaired production or efficiency, or that the respondent thought they did. Nor is there any evidence that the employees were "bothered" thereby, that such solicitation did "detract from their ability," or that the respondent thought it did either of these things. Brooks testified that he thought the rule was going to be necessary to increase production. There was no evidence at the hearing that it affected production one way or the other. Though the respondent, according to Brooks, had "always head a rule" requir- ing employees to "pay attention to their duties" while "on the job,:" it is significant that no such notice as was posted, herein existed at the Arapahoe Street plant in 50 years, and that it appeared at the Welton Street plant after-that plant had been operating about a month and only after the respondent was, aware of Mrs. Bowers' open union activities. Brooks' testimony thatit was posted because he "happened, to think one day" that "there would be different kinds of solicitation," is thus not credited. It simply does not ring true. Bowers was discharged the day after 19 of the employees who had attended the union meeting appeared in the plant wearing their union buttons. The prompt application of the rule to Bowers, the union leader in the plant, 6nly"2 days after the rule was posted, and without any attempt at any time to explain to the employees that the rule was intended to apply regardless whether the solicitation took place on the employees' own time or not,12`and the lack of proof that pro- duction suffered as a result of Bowers' solicitation, or that the rule was reasonably "Except one other employee who secured 2 signatures ; there is no evidence that these were secured in the plant ,. 12 Bowers testified, and the undersigned finds that she did not know the rule applied to employees on their own time Employees were paid on a piece work basis with an hourly minimum guarantee THE DENVER TENT AND AWNING CO. 593 necessary because of any kind of solicitation, cast' grave doubts upon the motives of the respondent in formulating the rule. There had in fact been no actual or impending impairment of production or efficiency. The rule was actually promulgated, and enforced to discourage membership in the Union. The undersigned finds that the respondent has discriminated in regard'to the hire and tenure of employment of Mrs Sidney Bowers, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in, Section 7 of the Act's The undersigned also finds that the respondent, by putting into effect the above rule prohibiting solicitation on the respondent's premises at the time the Union was beginning to organize, interfered with,, restrained, and coerced its employees in• the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section' III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend-lo lead to labor disputes -burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned will i•econimcnd that it cease and desist therefrom and' take certain affirmative' action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mrs. Sidney Bowers, and since Mrs. Bowers testified at the hearing that she was employed elsewhere and did not desire rein- statement, it is recommended below that the'respondent make hen whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination, by payment to her of a sum equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from August 15, 1942, the date of the discrimination against her, to October 29, 1942, the date of her testimony, less her net earnings during said period.' Since Mrs. Bowers does not desire reinstatement, no recommendation is made that the respondent offer reinstatement. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of facts and from the entire record in the case, the undersigned snakes the following: , Conclusions of Law 1 Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union No 217, I. L. W., U., is a labor .organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 13 See Matter of William Davies Co Inc, etc , 37 N L R B 1631; Matter of Letz Mfq Co, etc , 32 N L' R B 563; cf N. L. R. B v Midland Steel Products Co, 113 F. (2d) 800 (C. C. A. 6), rev'g 11 N L R B 1214 ; and N. L R B v Williamson -Dickie Mfg. Co, 130 F. (2d) 260 (C C A 5 ), enf'g as niod 35 N L R B 1220 ' By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred , by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent, which would hot have been incurred but for the respondent's discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of,his seeking employment else- where . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies ieceived for work performed upon Federal , State , county, municipal , or other work- ielief projects shall be consideied as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L R B , 311 U , S 7. 513024-43-vol 47-38 594' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' REtATIONS 'BOARD 2. By discriminating in'regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mrs. Sidney Bowers, thereby discouraging membership in the Warehouse and Distri- bution Workers Union No. 217, I L. W. U, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. 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. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting, commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed hereby recommends, that the respondent , The Denver -Tent & -Awning Co., and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall : - 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in the Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union No. 217, I . L. W. U., or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees , or by discriminating in any other way in regard to-their hire and tenure of employment , or any term or condition of their employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of-the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which ,the,undersigned finds will effe'ctu- ate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Mrs. Sidney Bowers for any loss of pay she may have suffered, ' by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her , by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of such discrimination , as found herein, 'to October 29, 1t42, less her net earnings during such period ; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Arapahoe Street and Welton Street plants in Denver, Colorado, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of posting„ notices stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) hereof; (2) that the re- spondent'will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of, the Warehouse and Distribution Workers Union No. 217, I. L. W. U ., and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of his membership or activity on behalf of that organization ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region in writing within - ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. THE DENVER TENT AND AWNINGS CO. 595 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, Shoreham 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 he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As fur- ther provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Dated : November -11. 1942. WEBSTER POWELL, Trial Examiner.