Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills

In the Matter of FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND AFFILIATED INTERNATIONAL UNIONS Case No. 14-C-1180.-Decided November 4, 1947 Mr. Harry G. Carlson, for the Board. Messrs. Daniel Bartlett and David Hennigan, of St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. John R. Barr, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Union. DECISION AND ORDER . On March 25,1947, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint as amended, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi- ate Report.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below. The Trial Examiner found that, inasmuch as the respondent had failed to rebut the presumption of the Union's continuing majority status, the Union, on and since the date of its certification, has been and now is the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees concerned. The respondent excepted to this finding. We find it un- necessary to pass upon these exceptions by the respondent, in view of the Trial Examiner's ultimate recommendation that the complaint in the instant case be dismissed. 1 The respondent also filed a request for oral argument . In view of our decision herein, the respondent 's request is hereby denied. 75 N. L R. B., No. 18. 155 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein, as amended, against Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, St. Louis, Missouri, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Harry C. Carlson, for the Board. Messrs. Daniel Bartlett and David Hennigan, of St. Louis , Mo., for the re- spondent. Mr. John R. Barr. of St. Louis, Mo., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on December 4, 1946, by American Federa- tion of Labor and affiliated International Unions, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated De- cember 4, 1946, against Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, herein called the respondent. The complaint alleged that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended charge, together with a notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing,' alleged in substance that the respondent: (1) on or about October 11, 1943, and continuously thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the respondent' s employees in a stated appropriate unit although the Union had been designated and selected by a majority of the said employees as such representative in a secret ballot election held under the auspices of the Board on September 24, 1943, and the Board, on October 11, 1943, having certified the Union as such representative;' i The affiliated unions involved in this proceeding are Bag Makers Federal Labor Union No. 23530, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilei s , Local No 6 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 618 (formerly Local No 688 ), and Building Service Employees Union , Local No. 50. During the course of the hearing , there was received in evidence a paper executed by an officer of the International Association of Machinists which set forth that that organiza- tion no longer claimed any instant jurisdiction over any of the respondent 's employees. 2 Certain amendments, slight in nature, were made at the opening of the hearing They weie made pursuant to a motion of Board's attorney which was not opposed by counsel for the respondent During the course of the hearing, however, the complaint was further amended without objection to include an allegation that the respondent violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by discriminatorily reducing, on or about December 10, 1946, the wages of Martha Carney and Dolores Hallerman 3 At the time of the filing of the representation proceeding Case No. R-5821, the Inter- national Association of Machinists was affiliated with the A. F. of L. and was one of the FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 157 (2) from on or about October 11, 1943, (a) misrepresented to the employees in the said appropriate unit, that the Union objected to the granting of wage increases to the said employees, (b) urged its employees to deal individually with the respond- ent instead of through the Union, (c) urged, persuaded, and warned its employees to abandon their concerted activities, (d) sponsored and conducted a vote among its employees for the purpose of inducing the said employees to abandon their concerted activities, and (e) interrogated its employees for the purpose of ascer- taining which employees had abandoned, or intended to abandon, their concerted activities; and (3) by such acts and conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On December 16, 1946, the respondent duly filed an answer admitting its cor- porate existence and the extent and nature of the business transacted by it but denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. On the last day of the hearing, the respondent filed an amended answer which like- wise denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on various dates between January 6 and February 6, 1946, at St. Louis, Missouri, before the undersigned, Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the then Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel ; the Union by a representative. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence rele- vant to the issues. At the opening of the hearing the undersigned granted in part and denied in part the respondent's motion for a bill of particulars. At the close of the Board's case, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. The motion was denied. At the conclusion of the taking of evidence, Board's counsel and respondent's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. Oral argument, in which Board's counsel only participated, was then heard. The parties were then advised that they might file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the undersigned on or before February 21, 1947 ` A brief has been received from respondent's counsel. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACr 1. THE 1USINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills is a Georgia corporation with its principal office in Atlanta, Georgia. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of various types of bags from sheetings, osnaburg, burlap, and paper. It operates plants in Atlanta, Georgia ; St. Louis, Missouri ; Kansas City. Kansas; New Orleans, Louisiana, Dallas, Texas ; and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The employees of the St. Louis, Missouri, plant are the only ones involved in this proceeding. During the fiscal year ending November 20, 1946, the respond- international unions claiming jurisdiction over some of the respondent's employees. Shortly prior to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election, dated September 6, 1943, the International Association of Machinists withdrew its affiliation with the A. F. of L. In its Decision and Direction of Election the Board directed an election to be held among the employees in the appropiiate unit to determine whether or not the said employees desired "to be represented jointly by American Federation of Labor, its affiliated Inter- national Unions, & District 9 of the International Association of Machinists." 4 The time was extended to and including March 8, 1947. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent purchased raw materials valued in excess of one million dollars, of which more than 95 percent were shipped to its St Louis, Missouri, plant from points outside the State of Missouri. During the same period, the respondent manu- factured new bags at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant valued in excess of one million dollars, of which more than 70 percent were shipped to points outside the State of Missouri. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED American Federation of Labor and those affiliates of it who are involved in this proceeding 5 are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively with the Union 1. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority status therein On September 6, 1943, upon the Union 's petition for an investigation and cer- tification of representatives and a hearing in Case No . R-5S21, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in which it found that all production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its St. Louis , Missouri , plant, excluding foremen and other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action , and office and clerical employees, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act The Board accordingly directed that an election by secret ballot be held under the supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the Fourteenth Region among the employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit to determine whether or not they wished to be represented by the Union.° Of a total of 166 ballots cast z at the election , which was held on September 24, 1943, 106 valid votes were cast for the Union and 60 against . On the same day of, but after, the election a "Report on Ordered Election " was issued by the said Regional Director and served upon the parties to that proceeding , and on Sep- tember 30 , 1943, a corrected "Report on Ordered Election" was issued by the said Regional Director and served upon the said parties . No objections to the said reports or to the conduct of the ballot were filed by any of the parties. In the instant proceeding, the respondent admitted in its answer the appropriateness of the unit but denied any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the said unit would insure to the employees the full benefits of their rights to self-organization or whether the said unit would eftectuate the policies of the Act. No evidence was introduced with respect to the appropriateness of the unit alleged in the complaint. Accordingly , the undersigned finds, that dur- ° Namely, Bag Makers Federal Labor Union No 23530, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 618 (formerly Local 688), and Building Service Employees Union, Local No 50 ° Since International Association of Machinists has disclaimed any jurisdiction over the respondent's employees, the undersigned will not refer to it as one of the petitioners in the representation proceedings. I There were 176 eligible voteis. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 159 ing all the times material herein, all the production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its St. Louis , Missouri , plant, excluding foremen and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, and office and clerical employees constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. As has been already noted, on September 24, 1943, the Union polled a majority of the valid votes cast in the election of representatives conducted by a secret ballot among the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region pursuant to the Board's Decision and Di- rection of Election in Case No. R-5821. On October 11, 1943, the Board accord. ingly certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit. The respondent's answer admitted the allegation of the complaint that the Union won the election held on September 24, 1943, but denied that the Union was on and since that date the exclusive collective bargain- ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. No evidence was in- troduced by the respondent to rebut the presumption of continuing majority status of the Union. The election of September 24, 1943, clearly shows that the Union was designated by a majority of the respondent's production and maintenance personnel employed at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant as their collective bargaining representative, and, therefore, the Boat d was fully justified in so certifying it as such representative. That the Union since its certification has remained the statutory collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit seems unquestionable in view of the state of the record in this case and upon the basis of recognized principles. For, it is to be presumed that once a collective bargaining representative has been certified as such by the Board, after a hearing and an election in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Act, it remains as such, not only for the period of a year during which the certification will not be normally disturbed, but also thereafter until the contrary is shown or a rival claim of representation is made. This presumption of continuing majority was not rebutted by the respondent herein. The undersigned, there- fore, finds that on and since September 24, 1943, the Union has been, and now is, the duly designated collective bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the unit hereinabove found appropriate and that, pursuant to the provision of Section 9 (a) of the Act the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 2. The alleged refusal to bargain a. Sequence of events Prior to the spring of 1943, the history in labor matters at the respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, plant was negative. In the latter part of May or in the early part of June of that year, the Union and the Congress of Industrial Organizations each launched separate campaigns to organize the respondent's employees. The campaign of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, however, evidently did not appeal to the employees. On the other hand. the Union's campaign was suc- cessful. In its letter, dated July 6, 1943, the Union notified the respondent that it represented a majority of the respondent's production and maintenance em- 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees. That same day, but before the receipt of the aforesaid letter,8 the respondent filed with the St. Louis office of the National War Labor Board, herein called the NWLB, a Form 10 application for approval of a 7-cent wage increase for its St. Louis employees On or about September 8, John R. Barr, the Union's representative, wrote the NWLB, asking it to deny the respondent's application for a wage increase because the Board had held a representation proceeding hearing and had directed an election for the purpose of determining whether the employees wanted to be represented by the Union. As found above, the Board conducted a secret ballot election on September 24, which the Union won. After the ballots had been counted and after the Union's victory had been announced, Allen G. Woodruff, production manager of the St. Louis plant, told Barr that the respondent was ready to bargain collectively with the Union at a time convenient to Barr. On or about November 23, Barr forwarded to the respondent's main office in Atlanta, Georgia, a blank mimeographed copy of a skeleton contract similar in form to those used by the American Federation of Labor in its negotiations with owners of plants kindred to that of the respondents By letter dated November 29, the respondent's attorneys, whose offices are located in Columbus, Georgia, acknowledged receipt of the proposed contracts and stated that they had arranged to meet with their client and would meet with Barr "as soon as practical " On December 13, the attorneys wrote Barr that they had conferred with the re- spondent's president but, because they wanted to have a further conference with him and also with the two main officials of the St. Louis plant, they would have to defer their meeting with Barr. The letter then stated that the attorneys would arrange to meet with Barr shortly after the first of the year. By letter dated January 18, 1044, the respondent's attorneys informed Barr that Woodruff, to whom the attorneys had that day forwarded a draft of the proposed contract, had been designated to conduct the bargaining negotiations on behalf of the respondent. On January 26, Woodruff met with Barr and the negotiating or executive com- mittee of the Union. At this meeting, the parties discussed the Union's proposed contract and the proposed contract submitted by the respondent. No definite agreement was reached as to any clause in either contract except that Woodruff conformed the recognition clause of the respondent's proposed contract to comply with the Act, by deleting therefrom all references to the fact that the respondent recognized the Union only as the representative for its members and substituted therefor a full and satisfactory recognition clause. From January 26 to February 24, Woodruff, Barr, and the committee held 17 collective bargaining conferences.1° At these meetings the respondent agreed to accept certain provisions contained in the Union's proposed contract and the Union agreed to certain provisions of the respondent's proposed contract." s The Union's letter was received by the respondent the following day, July 7. ° A copy of the proposed contract was forwarded the same day, November 23, to Woodruff. i° At most of these meetings , Woodruff was accompanied by at least one other official of the St Louis plant. 11 During the course of the hearing , Board's counsel argued that no agreement was reached at these meetings because the respondent qualified its acceptance of any clause by stating that its acceptance was purely "tentative." The credible evidence discloses that the parties recognized that what Woodruff meant when he stated the accepted clause was tentatively agreeable to the respondent , was that he meant he would not agree to any particular clause or put the provisions thereof into effect until an entire contract had been agreed to. Barr, moreover, admitted that he only tentatively agreed to certain acceptable clauses because he was without authority to agree to any contract without first submitting the contract to the membership and receiving its approval. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 161 Nevertheless, despite these agreements on the part of each of them, the parties were unable to agree on other provisions of the proposed contracts. Because of the apparent impasse that had arisen regarding the disputed items, the Conciliation Service of the United States Department of Labor was called into the situation by the Union. The Conciliator assigned to the matter held a conference with the parties on March 2, and another one on March 4, but was unable to settle the differences, and on March 31, the Conciliation Service certified the controversy to the NWLB. In the interim, on March 13,. a 1-day sit-down strike occurred in the plant'over a dispute which arose in the pressroom. This strike was settled on March 17, after the Conciliation Service had intervened and met with the parties that day. At this meeting, the re- spondent agreed to give the mutually agreed upon grievance provision a 30-day trial. Between May 9 and June 27, NWLB held 6 tripartite hearings during which 1089 pages of testimony and argument were taken '2 Each and every one of the 13 disputed issues were discussed at great length by each party to the proceeding. Attached to and made a part of the brief submitted by the respondent to the hearing officers was a proposed cogtract. During the aforesaid hearings the provisions of that contract were fully discussed, but no agreement was reached on any issues that had been certified to the NWLB. On July 13, Woodruff conferred with the Union's committeemen regarding a grievance with respect to "catch boys " He also met with the committee and Barr on July 20. At this latter meeting a joint application was forwarded to the NWLB for approval of a new job classification and wage rate for the receiving clerk. On September 25, Woodruff wrote Barr asking him if the Union had any objections to the provision of the proposed contract submitted by the respondent to the NWLB with respect to temporary transfers of employees for if it did the respondent wanted to submit the issue to the NWLB for determination. Barr replied by letter dated September 30, stating that the Union did not object to the temporary transfer clause provided the respondent complied "with the other articles of the proposed agreement in regard to loss or increase of pay of which according to my understanding that we were already at agreement on." On September 28, Woodruff wrote the chairman of the tripartite panel, to, which was assigned the respondent's labor dispute, that the respondent was introducing a new labeling operation which had not been included in the sub- mitted job classifications. The letter, a copy of which was forwarded to Barr the same day it was sent to the chairman, then proceeds to describe the opera- tions of the new job, the number of additional employees needed, and the pro- posed pay rates. The Union did not communicate with either the respondent or the NWLB with respect to this letter By letter dated January 17, 1945, Woodruff again asked Barr to clarify the Union's position in regard to the rates of pay on the aforesaid labeling operation by advising the respondent promptly whether the Union agreed or not to the arrangements as outlined in Woodruff's letter to the panel chairman dated September 28, 1944. The letter then stated that, as Woodruff had previously stated to Barr and the Union's executive committee, the suggested rates were "in accord with the formulae for the estab- lishment of rates for new production items as prescribed in General Order No 38." The letter continues with the statement that if the Union does not 12 On or about June 7, Local 688 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, warehousemen & Helpers of America withdrew fioni the negotiations 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agree to the proposed rates, the respondent would submit the matter to the NWLB for determination. No agreement was reached between the respondent and the Union with respect to this issue" On or about October 13, 1944, the chairman of the tripartite panel issued his report and served copies thereof on the parties On or about December 3, 1944, within the allowed time, the respondent filed its "Comments" with respect to the panel report. On or about February 12, 1945, the Regional War Labor Board, herein called the Regional Board, issued its Directive. On or about February 24, 1945, within the time allowed, the respondent filed its petition to review the Directive. On or about August 28, 1945, the NWLB issued its Directive. On or about October 24, 1945, it issued a compliance recommendation. The panel, Regional Board, and the NWLB each passed upon the 13 issues that were submitted to those divisions for determination after the matter was certified by the Conciliation Service. The hearings before the panel began on May 9, 1944, and concluded on June 27, 1944. During the course of the proceed- ing before the panel not only were the disputed issues discussed anew, but the whole contract was reviewed in detail, in an attempt to reach an agreement. On December 21, 1944, the respondent notified the Union and each employee of the respondent that since the NWLB 'had permitted employers to grant Christmas bonuses not to exceed $25, each employee of the respondent would receive a bonus. The amount of the bonus was to be determined in accordance with the length of service of the individual employee. The Union did not object to the granting of the bonus. In fact, the day following the receipt of the re- spondent's notification of its intention to give the bonus, Chalmer Young, the then president of the local union, wrote the respondent a letter thanking it for its "gesture of good will," granting the bonus. By letter dated February 15, 1945, 3 days after the issuance of the Regional Board's directive, the respondent handed the Union's president a letter, and the same day forwarded a copy thereof to Barr, in which the respondent stated that the respondent intended to appeal from the Regional Board's order, but that the respondent would agree to put into effect immediately the Regional Board's recommendation of an across -the-board increase of 7 cents per hour for all classifications involved and that the piece work rates be adjusted , as further recommended by the Regional Board, to bring them into proper relation with the other jobs. The letter then states : The Company will also agree that the increases andadjustments, above mentioned, shall be effective retroactive to March 31 , 1944 (but only for those now employed by the Company ), without awaiting the disposition of the Petition for Review. If your Organization will so agree, will you indicate on the copy of this letter we enclose for that purpose? Following an exchange of correspondence between the respondent and the Union, the latter by letter, dated March 5, informed the respondent that the Union would not agree to the increases and adjustments unless the respondent "pay the wage" and back pay to the people as ordered by the War Labor Board " 14 The re- spondent appealed the Regional Board's order and nothing was done by the "The record does not disclose whether this issue was ever submitted to the NW'i'LB. 14 It will be recalled that under the practice of the NWLB a party to a dispute could not put into effect a portion of a directive and appeal from the balance , without the consent of the other party or parties Nor could one party to a dispute modify a pro- vision of a directive and put the modification into effect without the consent of the other party or parties. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 163 respondent regarding the wage increases and adjustments nor with any other provision of the Regional Board's order until August 27, 1945,55 when it an- nounced to the employees that it intended to grant the ordered wage increases of 7 cents per hour and that it would adjust the piece work pay to conform to the increases given the hourly paid workers, retroactive to March 31, 1044, for those then in the respondent's employ. The increases and adjustments were put into effect on September 1, 1945. By letter dated September 7, 1945, Barr wrote Woodruff requesting that he incorporate into a signed agreement the terms and conditions of the order of the Regional Board, as modified by the NWLB. The letter then requested an appoint- ment with Woodruff for September 12 or 13 following. Woodruff replied by letter dated September 10, fixing September 13 as the date for the conference. The parties met on the last named date but the respondent refused to incorporate into a contract the provisions of the NWLB. Woodruff did state, however, that he was willing to continue to negotiate a collective bargaining contract at any time agreeable to the Union Woodruff further informed Barr and the coin- mittee members who attended this meeting that because the war was over, many of the provisions of the NWLB directive could not be complied with by the respondent and hence a contract regarding future relations of management- employee relations should be entered into. On September 24, representatives of the Union and representatives of the respondent met with a Conciliator of the United States Department of Labor. At this meeting, Barr again demanded that the respondent execute a collective bargaining contract incorporating therein all the provisions of the NWLB direc- tive Woodruff refused to do so, but stated that lie was willing to negotiate a contract regarding future relations between management and the employees. On October 3, the Conciliator met at the plant with representatives of the Union and the respondent. There discussion was had regarding a grievance which had arisen in the pressroom. On January 30, 1946, Woodruff called the Union's committee to his office and informed it that he had just received word from the respondent's main office in Atlanta, Georgia, that the respondent was contemplating granting a wage increase and he would discuss the matter with the Union as soon as he received more detailed information. That same day, Barr wrote the respondent's president in Atlanta a letter, sending a copy thereof to Woodruff, which reads in part as follows : As you know, the American Federation of Labor, its affiliated International Unions and District 9 of the International Association of Machinists were certified by the National Labor Relations Boaid , on or about September 24, 1943, as the bargaining agent for the employees of your company, located at 217 Cedar Street, St . Louis , Missouri. Since the date of certification , approximately 21/2 years have elapsed and to date your company has refused to sign a contract covering wages, hours and working conditions for the employees of this plant with the above-men- tioned unions, contrary to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. I am unable to understand the adamant position of your company in this matter for the union , in my opinion , has bent over backwards to cooperate in bringing about a satisfactory settlement in this situation . However, I must advise you that unless a signed contract is effected in the immediate "On August 18, 1945, the President of the United States removed wage controls. On August 28, the NWLB approved, in most respects, the order of the Regional Board 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD future it will be impossible for the union to continue in its cooperative manner with the company. I am writing to you as a last resort if you will either come to St. Louis yourself to meet with the union in an effort to reach a settlement in this matter or send a representative who has the full authority and power to make decisions for the company in regard to wages, hours and working con- ditions for these employees. At a meeting held Friday, January 25, 1946, Federal Labor Union No 23530, which represents approximately 95% of the employees of your company, voted to make the following further requests of your company. That a union shop with a checkoff of initiation fees and dues be incorporated in the con- tract and that a 250 per hour increase be granted by your company to all employees, because of the fact that these employees have not received an increase in wages since March 31, 1944, despite the-great increase in living costs. I have requested the U. S Department of Labor to appoint a Commissioner of Conciliation in this matter to assist us in bringing about a satisfactory signed agreement. On February 4, the respondent's president ieplied to Barr's letter as follows : This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 30th, which came under Registered Mail. At no time has our company refused to meet with representatives of the union for bargaining conferences. In such conferences as have been held, I am informed certain proposals have been made by the union which are unacceptable to the company. On the other hand, there have been certain proposals made by the company that to date have been unacceptable to the union. In answer to the third paragraph of your letter, Mr A. G Woodruff has full authority to represent the company and bind the company by his de- cisions in matters concerning all phases of any union contract, which are not in conflict with basic company policy. In the next to the last paragraph of your letter, you state that the union represents 95% of the employees of the company. At the time of the election this was not so, and I am informed that many of the employees who voted for the union have indicated that they were no longer interested in belonging to it. We recognize that there has been an increase in the cost of living We are instituting an increase in wages in several of our plants this coming week and propose an increase of approximately the same amount for our St. Louis plant. We feel this will more than offset the increase in the cost of living. In conclusion, there has been no case where authorized representatives of the company have refused to meet with the union representatives upon reasonable notice, and we suggest that you continue your direct contact with Mr. Woodruff rather than with me. At Woodruff's request, the Union's committee met with him on February 6, and was informed by him that the respondent wanted to grant another 7-cent per hour increase for the hourly paid employees and a commensurate increase for the piece workers and wanted to know if the Union would agree to this in- crease The committee asked for, and was given, time to discuss the matter with the membership. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 165 On February 14, the Union's and the respondent's representatives conferred with the Conciliator. At this conference, the following memorandum which the respondent had intended sending to the Union was read by the respondent's rep- resentative to those present: Inasmuch as the new national pattern of wage increases is rapidly being established, our company expects to keep up with the times as nearly as pos- sible in keeping with sound business management Therefore, the company offers to its St. Louis production and maintenance employees substantial wage increases herewith listed, subject to the following condition : CONDITION These wage increases will become effective at the beginning of the second pay period after written acceptance by the Union, if accepted. This offer is good until March 1, 1946. PROPOSAL Across the board increase for all, except clippers--------------- 7¢ per hr. Clippers----------------------------------------------------- 5¢ Female starting rate---------------------------------------- 500 Male „ „ ----------------------------------------- 65¢ All straight time rates (except clippers) increased------------ 7¢ per hr. Piece workers' base rates increased to render average earnings increase of------------------------------------------------ 7¢ per hr. Incentive pay workers on combination hourly rate plus piece work------------------------------------------ Hourly rate unchanged Entire increase to be made in piece rates so that average hourly earnings will be approximately 7^ higher. It is understood that whatever wage increases are made will be paid to all production and maintenance employees. These proposed wage increases will bring our plant's wide average earnings approximately 55% to 60% higher than of Jan. 1, 1941. No strings are attached to this off e7 and none to its acceptance. This offer and its acceptance shall not prejudice ctther- party with respect to any posi- tion assumed in any controversy heretofore assumed or that may hereafter arise. A copy of this proposal is being distributed to all of our employees for their information [italics supplied ] Kindly give this proposal your consideration. We will be glad to discuss any further details concerning this matter at a mutually convenient time aside from the regular working hours. After a lengthy discussion the respondent's offer, as outlined above, was accepted by the Union. The acceptance of the offer was predicated on the respondent's assurance that it would not foreclose the Union from demanding a further increase in wages. At this meeting, the Union submitted a new proposed contract which was discussed at some length, but no agreement was reached on any of the material clauses thereof Oh February 18, 21, 28, March 26, April 1, 8, 12, and May 2, the parties con- ferred with one or two conciliators looking toward a contract. The parties came to agreement on substantially all of the provisions, as rewritten, of the Union's proposed contract of February 14. Such items as wages and job classifications however, were not discussed because Barr asked that those items be postponed until agreement was reached on lesser important items. 7 0,S, 7 '--48-vol 75-12 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On May 23, the respondent informed the Union's committee that it was con- sidering increasing the wages another 5 cents per hour and wished to know if the Union objected to this increase even though the increase was to be with- out prejudice to the Union's demand for a further increase. On May 27, the Union's then president notified the respondent that the Union objected to the proffered increase. The increase was not put into effect. On June 4, another conference was held with a conciliator. An argument ensued during this conference and Barr was instructed by his superior, who also attended this meeting, to file,with the Board a charge of refusal to bar- gain. Barr left the meeting and went to the Board's Regional office and filed such a charge. Nonetheless, the conference proceeded and agreement was reached on some additional clauses of the proposed contract. On June 6, the respondent as notified by the Board's Regional office that a charge alleging that the respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the Union had been filed. The respondent and the Union met on June 21, with a Board's field examiner but the respondent's representatives refused to discuss the matter with the field examiner in the presence of the Union's representatives. On June 27, the employees struck and they did not return to work until De- cenmber 9. The strike was an economic strike occasioned by the respondent's refusal to reconvert a certain machine to its former speed, which change was put into effect after consultation with the Union" Barr and certain other offi- cials of the Union disclaimed responsibility for the calling of the strike and they often urged the employees to return to work. The employees, however, refused to heed Barr's advice and declared that they would not return to work until the respondent returned the machine to the speed in effect immediately prior to the strike. This the respondent refused to do. Despite the strike, the parties conferred with either one or two conciliators on July 2, 8, August 15, 19, 21, 29, September 5, 17, 24, 26, October 3 and 9. Dur- ing the conferences of August and September, the parties signed or initialed all the agreed upon provisions of a proposed contract. Agreement was reached on other items and these items were reduced to writing and were either initialed or signed by the parties. Further discussions were had on certain disputed clauses. During these conferences the Union withdrew certain of its demands. The October 3 and 9 meetings were confined chiefly to the rewriting of the seniority clause. The parties had previously agreed to the wording of this clause, but the Union withdrew its consent at the October 3 meeting and de- manded a clause which would recognize seniority as the governing factor when it came to lay-offs, rehiring, and promotions. The respondent refused to agree to such a clause, maintaining that ability must be given prime consideration in such matters, as agreed to by the Union earlier in the negotiations. At the October 9 meeting, each party brought to the conference a new proposed seniority clause Discussion was had on each one. During the discussion, an argument ensued and the respondent's representatives left the meeting when they became offended at certain statements made to them by the Union's spokesmen 17 This was the last negotiating conference held by the parties, and none was thereafter requested by either party. 19 This change of speed is discussed more fully below under "Alleged violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act" 11 The Board made no contention that the leaving of the last meeting by respondent's representatives was per se a refusal to bargain. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 167 b. Concluding findings with respect to the alleged refusal to bargain The findings above, as to the negotiations between the respondent and the Union from January 26, 1944, to October 9, 1946, show that the respondent recognized the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the unit in which the Union had been designated and certified, and met and dealt with the Union as such representative i8 After consideration and discussion of the Union's proposed contract, the respondent, in turn, prepared and sub- mitted to the Union a proposed contract containing provisions desired by it. The respondent agreed to accept certain provisions contained in the Union's proposed contract and the Union agreed to certain provisions suggested by the respondent. Nevertheless, despite these agreements on the part of each of them, the parties were unable to agree on other provisions proposed by each of them. The result was that on October 9, 1946, the respondent and the Union had reached an impasse in their negotiations. There is nothing in the record which discloses any antipathy by the respondent for this or any other union nor is there any evidence to indicate that in the negotiations with the Union, the respondent acted otherwise than in good faith. In fact, there is no indi- cation than at any stage of the negotiations the respondent acted in bad faith. Its negotiations over a period of almost 33 months with the Union, under the facts here disclosed, is some evidence of its good faith effort to carry out its obligation to bargain There is nothing in the record to indicate that the impasse on October 9, 1946, could or would have been broken and an agreement reached at any subsecuent time had negotiations continued Board's counsel contended that, despite the Union's insistence, the respondent refused to have a person present at the conference table with authority to make commitments. The facts do not support this contention. Throughout the nego- tiations the respondent was represented by Woodruff, who was designated by the respondent in January 1944, with full authority to make binding commitments. Woodruff, assisted at times by other officials of the St Louis plant and at other times by the respondent's attorney, attended and participated in each negotiating conference and attended and participated in the proceedings before the tripartite panel of the NWLB. Woodruff never hesitated to state what provisions of the Union's proposed contract were acceptable to the respondent and what were not. From time to time, Woodruff made concessions and submitted counterproposals. Whenever a suggestion of the Union was not acceptable to him he attempted to come to some agreement by the offer of a counterproposal. There were proposals of the Union, however, that Woodruff refused to grant or to offer a substitute therefor, but he never did so without first giving the Union his reasons for his refusal to accept the proposal or for not offering a counterproposal. In short, throughout the entire negotiations Woodruff gave mature consideration to each proposal of the Union. The fact that he refused to accept each and every demand of the Union, and referred some to the main office for consideration, can not be held to support the proposition that the respondent did not have a person at the 11 It is true that the proposed contract submitted by the respondent at the first bargain- ing conference did not comply with the Act in that the contract recognized the Union as the representative for its members only. The recognition clause was, immediately cor- rected when attention was called to its invalidity. Under the circumstances, especially since the respondent did not withhold from the Union exclusive recognition as collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit The respondent recognized its mistake and immediately corrected it. It can not properly be said that the proffer of the limited recognition clause was characteristic of the respondent's approach in its dealings with the Union. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conferences with authority to make commitments on its behalf. Woodruff had that authority and he exercised it. The Union was reassured, moreover, of Wood- ruff's authority when the respondent's president wrote Barr on February 4, 1946, in response to the latter's request that a person with authority confer with the Union.19 Board's counsel contends that the granting of the 1944 Christmas bonus and the granting of the various wage increases constituted further evidence of a refusal to bargain. Prior to the granting of the bonus, the Union was advised of the respondent's intention to do so. The Union did not object. On the con- trary, the respondent was praised for its generosity by the Union's then president. In February 1945, the respondent informed the Union that it wanted to grant a 7-cent wage increase, retroactive to March 31, 1944, to all employees then in its employ. The Union objected unless all the persons covered by the Regional Board's order received the increase. The respondent refused to do so. In August 1945, the respondent, however, gave to each hourly paid employee then in its employ the 7 cents per hour increase and adjusted the pay rate of the piece workers correspondingly. The other increase was put into effect after receiving the Union's approval. When the Union objected to the proposed increase of May 1946, the respondent did not put that into effect until it had received the Union's approval in December of that year. The undersigned finds no merit in the contentions of Board's counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, including the respondent's repeated and consistent evidences of good faith, the undersigned finds that the respondent did not refuse to bargain with the Union as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dis- missed. B. The alleged violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act It will be recalled that the employees struck on June 27, 1946, because the respondent increased the production of a certain machine thereby, according to the erroneous conception of the employees, adversely affecting the earnings of Dolores Hallerman 20 and Martha Carney. The facts regarding the operations of this machine, referred to in the record as the "Ersted S-40" or "50 pound mesh turner" are : Prior to the installation in 1941 of the Ersted S-40 machine, which has a standard 4-step variable speed range from 45 to 63 strokes per minute, the respondent turned its 50-pound open mesh and some 1-bushel seed corn bags on an old model Philbric Turner, also referred to in the record as a "burlap turner " The Philbric machine has a fixed speed of 37 strokes per minute. The production standard of most size bags on the Philbric machine always has been 1300 per hour Another machine mentioned in the record is known as an "Air Turner." Many 1-bushel seed corn bags are turned on this machine It has a fixed speed of 49 strokes per minute and its production standard is 1,500 bags per hour Through error, the sane production standards of the slower Philbric ma- chine were applied to the new and faster Ersted S-40, and, for the first few years, it was operated at its lowest speed of 45 strokes per minute. Thus, the inequity between the operators of Philbric and Ersted machines is apparent. Using the standard mouthpieces of the Ersted S-40, as furnished by its mann- 19 Although tine pasties had been negotiating for over 2 years, Woodruff's authority was not questioned by the Union until January 30, 1946, the date of Barr's letter to the respondent's president 20 Also referred to in the record as Doris Hallerman. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 169 facturer, the respondent found it was unable to turn 50-pound open mesh bags without a very high loss ratio of torn bags. To remedy this trouble, the re- spondent installed a smaller pulley on the motor and reduced the machine speed to 33 strokes per minute and the production standard to 1000 per hour. At this slow speed, the 50-pound open mesh bags turned without so much tearing, but the production rate was not satisfactory. During the summer of 1944, one of the respondent's engineers discovered that the difficulty with the 50-pound mesh bags was caused by the shape of the machine's mouthpiece. An improved mouthpiece was developed at one of the respondent's other factories, so the Atlanta shop made one for the machine at St. Louis This was installed in about September 1944. The respondent did not bring the speed up to the orig- inal 45 strokes per minute and the foi mer standard rate of production of 1300 per hour until April 1940 Thus in April 1940, the respondent was simply restor- ing the production rate to 1300 per hour, which was still comparatively out of line with the other machine rates. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged that on or about December 10, 1946, the clay following the employees' return to work, the respondent reduced the wages of Carney and Hallerman by lowering the rate of pay per 1000 bags and by increasing the standard of production because they, and each of them, engaged in "concerted activities in behalf of wages, hours, working conditions and for their mutual aid and protection" thereby discrediting the Union and discouraging membership therein. The April 1946 change of operation of the Ersted 5-40 machine was fully discussed by the respondent with the Union at the time the change was made. It was mutually agreed that a 30-day trial period be given in order to ascertain whether the wages of the operators would be adversely affected by the change ." During, and at the end of, the trial period, Carney and Hallerman complained to the Union and to the respondent that the change in the speed of the machine and the increased standard of production caused a decrease in their earnings because their production suffered. At the several conferences with the Union, Woodruff pointed out that the complaints were unwarranted and that the loss in pay was due to Carney's and Hallerman's refusal to perform their tasks properly. Woodruff also told the union representatives that he would not recon- vert to the lower speed or lower the standard because he was convinced that the operators could earn more money at the increased speed than they did before if they applied themselves to their jobs. At a bargaining conference held on August 15, 1946, Woodruff informed the Union that as a result of the dispute which caused the employees to strike, he had one of the respondent's engineers again examine the Ersted machine. The engineer reported, according to Woodruff's credited testimony, that the speed of that machine should be increased further and the production standard fur- ther increased to bring the production in line with the standard set at the other plants of the respondent. Woodruff also informed the Union at this meeting, that other machines were examined by the engineer who recommended that the production standards and speeds of certain machines be raised, some up and some down. Woodruff then stated to the Union that they were revised, in accordance with the engineer's recommendations, and that if the Union objected to the changes he would like to hear the objections and discuss them. No objec- tions were made, although present at that conference, as a member of the com- 21 Board 's counsel stated at the hearing that the April 1946 change was not violative of the Act. 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mittee, was an experienced turner. The changes announced at this meeting affected all the turning machines, as well as the machine of Hallerman and Carney. No changes were made after August 15, 1946. At the time the changes were announced, the respondent did not know which, if any, of its employees would return to work again upon the Ersted machine. At that time the employees seemed determined not to return to work until the respondent reconverted to the production standard and speed that was in effect prior to the April 1946 change. The changes, therefore, announced on August 15, could not have been directed against Carney and Hallerman, or either of them. The speeds and standards now in effect at the St. Louis plant are the same as those in effect at the other plants of the respondent. The fact that Hallerman and Carney failed, after their return to work on December 9, 1946, to earn more than they did was due to their fault. This is proven by the comparative production figures on identical bags introduced in evidence of other employees. It is also to be noted that Hallerman and Carney were also working at night for another employer from the time they returned to work after the strike to about December 3, 1946, when they gave up this outside employment. During this period their production of seed bags totaled 13,200 per day. Immediately after giving up their night jobs, their production increased to 15,230 per day. These production results were accomplished in an 8-hour day on identical bags and using the Ersted machine at the same speed that it had been operated while Hallerman and Carney were also doing night work. It is clear, and the undersigned finds, that the night jobs held by Hallerman and Carney while they were in respondent's employ adversely affected their earnings at the respondent's plant. Moreover, both Hallerman and Carney were slow workers compared to the other turners in the respondent's employ. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the respondent had any knowledge that either Hallerman or Carney were members of the Union The record shows that each of them joined the Union at its inception but neither of them took any active part in its activities except Hallerman Her activities consisted of being a trustee of the Union for the first few days of its formative stage and in passing out membership cards in May or in June 1943 The undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the earnings of Halleiinan and Carney did not suffer as the result of the change in the Ersted machine. The undersigned further finds the changes were not made for the purpose of dis- criminating against either Hallerman or Carney, or for the purpose of discredit- ing the Union, or for discouraging membership therein Accoiduigly, the under- signed will recommend that the allegation of the complaint, as amended, that the respondent reduced the wages of Martha Carney and Dolores Hallerman in violation of the Act be dismissed. C. Other alleged unfair labor pi actices Reference has already been made to Barr's and other union officials' dis- claimer of responsibility for the calling of the strike. Barr testified, and the undersigned finds, that as soon as he heard of the strike he urged the employees to return to work, but was unsuccessful; that the strike was called without the consent of any official of the AFL; and that throughout the strike, he and other officials of the AFL failed in their attempts to end the strike. During the strike, but after it became appaieiit to the respondent that the Union was unable to persuade the employees to return to work and after Barr's statement to Woodruff and a conciliator that the officials of the AFL did not sanction the strike, the respondent wrote letters to each striking employee, which FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 171 Board's counsel contended at the hearing, was for the purpose of inducing the employees to abandon the strike, forsake the Union, and to bargain individually with the respondent. Board's counsel also contended that for the same illegal purpose a poll was conducted by the respondent among the strikers in October 1946, to ascertain which strikers desired to return to work. It would serve no useful purpose to set out in full the letters complained of because the undersigned finds nothing in any of them that would justify a finding that their issuance was violative of the Act. The letters contained noth- ing but an accurate report of the respondent's position and do not contain any coercive statement nor any threat of reprisal if the strikers did not return to work. Since the Union was unable to induce the strikers to return to work, the respondent took it upon itself to get them back to work. The respondent ap- pealed to the individual strikers to return to work after it had sought in vain through dealings with the Union to get them back. The Union always responded by saying that it was helpless. The letters contained nothing additional than what was offered and discussed with the Union prior to the strike.' Finally, early in December, the Union committee came into the plant and informed Woodruff that the strikers were ready to return to work and the respondent reinstated, without discrimination so far as appears, all employees. When the committee inquired of Woodruff whether the employees would receive the 5 cent increase if they return to work, Woodruff answered in the affirmative. It thus appears that the Union offered no objection to the granting of this increase. Services of an independent firm of accountants were hired by the respondent to conduct the poll by mailed ballots The ballots were asked to be returned unsigned to the accounting firm 23 Although not consulted time Union at no time objected to the taking of the poll. Since the officials of the Union and of the AFL with whom the respondent was dealing each disclaimed responsibility for the strike and each assured the respondent that he was unable to get the employees back to work, the undersigned finds that the respondent, under the particular circumstances disclosed by the instant record, especially since the record discloses no anti-Union animus upon its part, that the poll conducted by the respondent among the strikers was not violative of the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent violated the Act by issuing letters to the strikers and conducting a poll among them be dismissed. The undersigned also finds that the statements contained in the letters issued to employees by the respondent in February 1945 were not violative of the Act. The letters clearly and accurately stated what transpired at several conferences the respondent had with the Union with regard to the wage increases ordered by the Regional Board of the NWLB. The letters stated, among other things, that the respondent wanted to put into effect for those persons then on its pay roll, the wage increases ordered by the Regional Board and that the Union objected 22 In its letter of October 19, 1946 , the respondent stated "that it is the company's posi- tion when operations are resumed in the plant, it will be at the old rates of pay plus the 5 cent geneial wage increase which we have given in all of our other plants." This was the wage increase offered to the Union in May 1946, and rejected by it. 23 FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS EMPLOYEE'S SECRET BALLOT I am ready to return to work q I want the strike to continue q Write the word "Yes" in only one of the above squares and return this ballot to Price, Waterhouse & Co. in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope. 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because it wanted the increases to be paid to all persons affected by the order. The letters contained no coercive statements nor threats, either veiled or other- wise, of reprisals.24 There remains to be considered certain testimony which Board's counsel con- tended at the hearing was indicative of the respondent's anti-union attitude The testimony is that of employee Colche Burklow. She testified that she was hired by Woodruff on December 31, 1945; that during the interview she asked Woodruff if there was a union in the plant; and that Woodruff replied in the affirmative but added, to quote Burklow's testimony "it wasn't compulsory for me to join the Union, if I wanted to donate a dollar a month to the Union that was my privilege, that they (the respondent) didn't cooperate with the Union." Burklow also testified, "So I joined the union anyway." Regarding this interview with Burklow, Woodruff testified, "I told her that we had a union here, a good many belonged to it, but that membership in the Union was not compulsory to hold a job at our company. I also told her that we had no contract at the time with the union." It is inconceivable to the undersigned that Woodruff would have told an applicant for a job in December 1945, that the respondent was not "cooperating" with the Union, when he had been for a period of about 2 years previous thereto endeavor- ing to convince the Union, the employees, the Conciliation Service of the United States Department of Labor, the NWLB, and the Board that the respondent was doing everything in its power to agree to a collective bargaining contract with the Union and was cooperating with it in every respect. The undersigned finds that Woodruff's version of what transpired at the interview with Burklow on December 31, 1945, to be substantially in accord with the facts. Accordingly the undersigned will recommend that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent violated the Act by the anti-union statement of Woodruff be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the undersigned makes the following,: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations of the respondent, Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, St. Louis, Missouri, occur in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Bag Makers Federal Labor Union No 23530, International Brotherhood of Firemen, Local No. 6, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 618, and Building Service Em- ployees Union, Local No. 50, each affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint as amended, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and 24 See Matter of United Welding Company, 72 N. L. R. B 954. FULTON BAG AND COTTON MILLS 173 Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, 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 proceeding (in- cluding rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director Proof of service on other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203 65 As further provided in said Section 20330, 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board. HOWARD MYERS, Trial Examiner. Dated March 25, 1947.