Plywood Workers Local Union No. 2498

50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In the light of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following conclusions of law: 1. Los Angeles Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 78, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, as amended. 2. All of the letterpress pressroom employees of the Respondent at its Los Angeles plant, including letterpress pressmen, press feeders, and press assistants, but exclusive of all other employees, all supervisors, office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, pro- fessional employees, and offset department employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of a collective bargain within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, as amended. 3. At all times since November 9, 1951, Los Angeles Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 78, has been and now is entitled to act as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended. 4. The Respondent, by its failure or refusal sinceNovember 9, 1951, to bargain collectively with Los Angeles Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 78, as the exclusive repre- sentative of its employees in the above-described unit, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, as amended. 5. By its discrunination in regard to the hire and employment tenure of Howard Jones, Joseph A. Collins, and Bennie L. Jewell, to discourage membership in Los Angeles Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 78, the Respondent has engaged in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as amended. 6. By its interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as amended. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] PLYWOOD WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 2498 and LAURIE ALEX ULVI. Case No. 19-CB-229. May 28, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 19, 1953, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peter- son]. 105 NLRB No. 21. PLYWOOD WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 2498 51 was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examine r.' 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 Respondent, Plywood Workers Local Union No. 2498, a chartered local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America which, in turn, is affiliated with American Federation of Labor, Long- view, Washington , its officers , representatives , agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: a. Cease and desist from: (1) Attempting to cause Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , to discharge Laurie Alex Ulvi because he is not a member in good standing in Plywood Workers Local Union No. 2498, a chartered local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America which, in turn, is affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization , except in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act; or in any other manner attempting to cause said Company, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, to discriminate against any of its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (Z)Restraining or coercing employees or prospective em- ployees of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. b. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (1) Immediately notify Weyerhaeuser Timber Company and Laurie Alex Ulvi, at his last known place of residence, in writing, that it has no objection to the employment of Ulvi by Weyerhaeuser, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. (2) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its business office and such other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto and 2 As in a proceeding of this nature the employer is not a necessary party, the Respondent's contention that the complaint be dismissed for failure to join the employer here as a party is rejected. National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards , 92 NLRB 877. 'The Respondent's renewed motion to dismiss the complaint on its merits , for failure of proof. is denied for the reasons fully set forth in the Intermediate Report. Respondent's contentions in Its brief relating to the alleged ambiguity of the contract under which Ulvi was discharged are without merit and are rejected. Don Juan Co., Inc., 79 NLRB 154, enforced 178 F. 2d 625 (C. A. 2). 89 NLRB 1425, enforced 185 F. 2d 393 (C. A. 2). 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD marked "Appendix A."4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be main- tained for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (3) Mail to said Regional Director signed copies of the aforesaid notices for posting, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company willing, in the plant of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, Long- view, Washington, where notices to its employees are cus- tomarily posted. (4) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith. 4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to A Decision and Order" the words "Pur- suant to A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF PLYWOOD WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 2498 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES OF WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our members and the employees of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, that: WE WILL NOT attempt to cause Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, its officers , agents , successors , or assigns, to discriminate against Laurie Alex Ulvi or any other em- ployee or prospective employee of said company in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees or pro- spective employees of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, its successors or assigns , in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL notify Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, in writing, that we withdraw our objection to the employment by it of Laurie Alex Ulvi. WE WILL notify Laurie Alex Ulvi, in writing , that we have advised Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, that we PLYWOOD WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 2498 53 withdraw our objection to his employment by Weyerhaeuser Timber Company. PLYWOOD WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 2498, Labor Organization. Dated ................ By.................................................... (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on November 25, 1952, by Laurie Alex Ulvi, herein called Ulvi, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued his complaint on January 23, 1953, alleging that Plywood Workers Local Union No. 2498, a chartered local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America which, in turn, is affiliated with American Federation of Labor, herein called Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended charge, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon Respondent and upon Ulvi. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance alleged that (1) on various occasions since on or about July 1, 1952, Respondent, for the purpose of encouraging and discouraging membership in Respondent, caused or attempted to cause Ulvi's employer, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, herein called Weyerhaeuser, to discriminate against Ulvi with respect to his hire and tenure of employment, and (2) on various occasions since the above-mentioned date Respondent, by means of certain stated acts and conduct, coerced and restrained Ulvi and other employees of Weyerhaeuser in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. On January 30, 1953, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on February 9, 1953, at Longview, Washington, before the undersigned, the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Re- spondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce relevant evidence was afforded all parties. Before the taking of any evidence, Respondent's counsel moved to dis- miss the complaint (this motion also appeared in Respondent's answer) on the grounds that Weyerhaeuser, Ulvi's employer, was not made a party respondent in this proceeding. The motion was denied with leave to renew. In his brief, Respondent's counsel urges again that the complaint be dismissed because of the failure to join Weyerhaeuser as a party. The motion is again denied.' At the conclusion of the taking of evidence, the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion was granted without objection. Re- spondent's counsel then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Decision thereon was reserved. The motion is hereby denied. The parties were then advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned on or before March 2, 1953. A brief has been received for Respondent's counsel which has been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the under- signed makes the following: 'See N. L. R. B. v. Newspaper & Mail Delivers, 192 F. 2d 654 (C. A. 2); N. L. R. B. v. The Radio Officers Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, 196 F. 2d 960 (C. A. 2); National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards , 92 NLRB 877. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF ULVI'S EMPLOYER Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, a Washington corporation, is engaged in cutting logs, processing the timber derived therefrom, and transporting the finished products to several States of the United States. Weyerhaeuser operates branches in several States and its annual out-of-State shipments of finished products from its operations located in the State of Washington exceed $25,000. Upon the above conceded facts, the undersigned finds that Weyerhaeuser Timber Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Plywood Workers Local Union No. 2498, a chartered local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America which, in turn, is affiliated with American Federation of Labor, admits to membership employees of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Respondent ' s coercion and restraint of Weyerhaeuser ' s employees 1. The sequence of the pertinent facts In 1949 Respondent and Weyerhaeuser entered into the first of a series of agreements covering Weyerhaeuser's Longview, Washington, plywood plant employees for whom Re- spondent had been certified as their collective-bargaining representative by the Board's certification, dated October 12, 1948, and by its supplemental order of February 4, 1949. Article II of said agreement (by stipulation entered into at the hearing Respondent and the General Counsel agreed that this article also appears in identical form in all subsequent agreements between Respondent and Weyerhaeuser) reads in part as follows: (1) All regular employees, who are members of the Union on the effective date hereof, or who become members of the Union by signing an application card during the term of this Agreement shall as a condition of continued employment, maintain such member- ship during the life of this Agreement. The Company agrees to discharge any employee whose membership is terminated for failure to tender periodic dues uniformly required of all employee members of the Union. (2) Union request for discharge of any member delinquent in payment of membership dues shall be made in writing, giving at least one week's notice to the employees and the Company. Each such employee shall have at least seven days for receipt of notice to appeal the Union's statement and/or to bring his membership dues into good standing. In the latter part of July 1950, Ulvi commenced his employment with Weyerhaeuser as a member of its labor pool, at which time a collective-bargaining agreement, dated April 20, 1950, and containing a maintenance -membership clause identical to the clause set forth above, was in effect between Weyerhaeuser and Respondent. After being employed for about 3 weeks he became a core sorter. Within a week or two of said employment. Ulvi signed a card, which bears the date of July 24, 1950, seeking membership in Respondent. From the time he signed the membership application card until he left Weyerhaeuser 's employ on May 29 , 1951, Ulvi was always de- linquent in the payment of his dues or other financial obligations to Respondent. In fact, under dates of September 22, 1950, and April 9, 1951, Weyerhaeuser wrote Ulvi that Re- spondent had demanded his discharge because he was delinquent in dues and that if he did not pay Respondent the money due or make some satisfactory arrangements with it he would be discharged. After Ulvi received the September 22 letter, he visited Respondent's office and paid a portion of the required initiation fee and then promised to pay the balance thereof together with a month's dues on the next payday.. Ulvi was initiated into Respondent on November 3, 1950, at which time he paid a month's dues . On February 15, 1951, Ulvi paid his December 1950 dues . On April 13, 1951, after re- ceiving the aforesaid Weyerhaeuser 's letter of April 6, informing him of Respondent's PLYWOOD WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 2498 55 demand for his dismissal unless he became a member in good standing by a specified date, Ulvi paid his January and February 1951 dues. That was the last payment Ulvi made prior to leaving his employment on May 29, 1951. At the time of said termination Ulvi owed his March, April, and May dues. Shortly after quitting his job with Weyerhaeuser and prior to leaving Longview, Washington, to work on his farm located near Duluth, Minnesota, Ulvi applied to Respondent for a with- drawal card but was refused one. On or about September 1, 1951, Respondent dropped Ulvi from its membership rolls because of his dues delinquency. Ulvi returned to Longview in February 1952. He applied for employment with Weyerhaeuser on the following March 17. He was put to work the following day in the labor pool as a new employee. When Ulvi severed his employment with Weyerhaeuser, he lost all his seniority and other employee privileges . Upon reentering Weyerhaeuser 's employ Ulvi 's basic starting pay was less than he had been receiving as a core sorter. At the time of the hearing, Ulvi was working on the second shift as an "off-bearer on the edge gluer" at the basic rate of $1.881 per hour. Ulvi testified, and the undersigned finds, that on the same day he was reemployed by Weyerhaeuser, he went to Respondent's office and informed Walter A. Porter, its business agent, that he again was working for Weyerhaeuser and presumed that he would "have to start paying dues"; that Porter then informed him that he had been "suspended out" of Respondent and in order to reinstate himself in good standing in Respondent he would have to pay a 5- dollar fine, a 10-dollar initiation fee, and $3.75 being a month's dues; and as he was leaving Respondent's office , Porter inquired if he was "ready to sign an application card" to which he replied in the negative. On August 14, Ulvi accompanied a fellow-employee to Respondent's office where this per- son joined Respondent. Ulvi testified, and the undersigned finds, that on this occasion, Porter again asked him if he was ready to sign an application card and again he answered in the negative ; that around the first of September , he met Porter in the plant and that Porter asked when he was going to join Respondent; that on October 16, he received a letter from his employer stating that Respondent had written demanding that he be discharged because he was delinquent in his dues and that if he did not pay those dues or make some satisfactory arrangement with Respondent by October 28, he would be discharged. Ulvi credibly testified further that on October 18, in response to the aforesaid letter from his employer , he called upon Willis Lonergan, Weyerhaeuser 's personnel manager, and in- formed Lonergan that he was not a member of Respondent and therefore he did not under- stand why he should be advised that he would be discharged if he did not pay dues to Re- spondent; that Lonergan replied that Lonergan would take the matter up with Respondent and let his foreman know the results thereof; that on October 30, his foreman , Ray Nowotny, told him if he did not "get going and settle up with the Union tomorrow night" would be his "last night at work"; that when he saw Porter in the plant that night (October 30) he told Porter that he would join Respondent because he had to work for a living , but that he "was going to sign" the application card "under protest for the time being "; and that Porter replied, "No, you will sign it just like all the rest of them do or you won 't sign it at all." The next day, October 31, Ulvi, together with Fred Hamar and Richard Gauthier, two fellow workers whom Ulvi requested to accompany him as witnesses , went to Respondent's offices. There, Ulvi informed Porter that he was ready to sign the application card. Porter then filled out an application card, inserting thereon the necessary data, and handed it to Ulvi for his signature. Thereupon , Ulvi stated that he wanted it understood by all present that he was signing the card against his will and was signing it only because he had to do so to retain his job. When Porter stated that Ulvi did not "have to sign" the card, Ulvi inquired of Porter whether he would lose his job if he did not, and Porter replied in the affirmative. Ulvi then signed the application card which Porter had handed him, paid Porter $8.75 on account, and then advised Porter that he would pay the 10-dollar balance "after the first of the year."2 Ulvi made no further payments to Respondent. 2. Concluding findings It is the General Counsel's contention that when Ulvi became a new employee upon his re- hiring by Weyerhaeuser , he was not obliged, under the terms of the then existing contract 2 Porter 's version about his various conversations with Ulvi are somewhat at variance with Ulvi's. The undersigned accepts as more reliable Ulvi's versions. 291555 0 - 54 - 5 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD between Respondent and Weyerhaeuser , to become a member of Respondent or to reinstate himself as a member thereof In good standing, and therefore Respondent's attempts to force Ulvi to join Respondent and Its attempts to force Weyerhaeuser to discharge Ulvi were violative of the Act. On the other hand, Respondent contended that Respondent 's actions in seeking Ulvi 's discharge and its request that he become a member in good standing were protected by the agreement between Respondent and Weyerhaeuser for the reason that since Ulvi once having joined Respondent it was obligatory on his part to maintain his membership in good standing as long as he was in Weyerhaeuser 's employ. The credible and undisputed evidence establishes thatwhenUlvi returned to Weyerhaeuser's employ in March 1952 , he was rehired as a new employee. Prior to his quitting in May 1951, the validity of which quitting was not questioned , he was a core sorter. Upon his return he obtained a job in the labor pool and later became an "off-bearer on the edge ghuer," different and lower paid jobs than that which he had prior to his 1951 quitting. Upon his separation in May 1951, Ulvi forfeited all his seniority rights and privileges , none of which was regained when he was rehired. It is also undisputed that when Ulvi left Weyerhaeuser 's employ in May 1951, he was not a member in good standing of Respondent and that in or about the fol lowing September he was dropped from Respondent 's membership rolls because he was in arrears in his payments to Respondent. It is also clear from the credible evidence that Ulvi sought to reinstate himself in good standing only (1) after Respondent had requested his discharge and (2) after being in- formed by Foreman Nowomy on October 30 and by Porter on October 31, that if he did not become a member in good standing he would lose his job with Weyerhaeuser. Since Ulvi became a new employee upon being rehired on March 18, 1952, it was not neces- sary for him to join or reinstate himself in good standing in Respondent in order to keep his job. The pressure placed upon Weyerhaeuser by Respondent to discharge Ulvi, coupled with Nowomy's statement to Ulvi to place himself in good standing else he would be fired and Porter's numerous statements to Ulvi that if he does not join or rejoin Respondent he would lose his job with Weyerhaeuser , under the circumstances here disclosed , was not only un- warranted as a matter of law, but was a type of duress , notwithstanding Nowotny's and Porter 's misconception of Ulvi 's obligation,3 which serves to nullify any effect Ulvi's partial gesture toward reinstatement might have had on his status under the collective- bargaining contract then in force. In face of such duress , Ulvi was under no more obligation to complete his reinstatement , or to maintain a membership in good standing after he had made the $8.75 payment on October 31, 1952, than he was before doing so. In placing an erroneous construction on the contract , Respondent acted at its peril and violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, when the true facts disclose that the contract did not re- quire Ulvi to become a member in good standing in Respondent or to rejoin it.' IV. THE ):FFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section In, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and, such as them as have been found to be unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent attempted to cause Weyerhaeuser to discriminate against Ulvi and other employees of Weyerhaeuser, it will be recommended that Respondent notify Weyerhaeuser, in writing, and furnish a copy to Ulvi, that Respondent has no objections to Ulvi being employed by Weyerhaeuser. sln its letter of October 14, 1952, to Weyerhaeuser, wherein Respondent sought Ulvi's dis- charge unless he brought his "membership dues into good standing on or before" the follow- ing October 28, Respondent also requested that three other named employees , whose situations were identical to Ulvi's in that they had left Weyerhaeuser 's employ after joining Respondent and thereafter had been dropped as members because of nonpayment of dues, and also failed to rejoin it upon their rehiring by Weyerhaeuser , be discharged unless they became members in good standing by the aforementioned date. 4See Idarado Mining Company, 77 NLRB 392. MARSHALL CAR WHEEL AND FOUNDRY CO. 57 The scope of Respondent's illegal conduct, as found above, discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization among the rank -and-file employees and prospective employees of Weyer- haeuser Timber Company. In order, therefore, to makeeffective the interdependent guarantee of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize indus- trial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner in- fringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Plywood Workers Local Union No. 2498, a chartered local of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America which, in turn, is affiliated with American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, Longview, Washington, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing employees of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company in the exer- cise 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 (b) (1) (A) of the amended Act. 4. By attempting to cause Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, an employer, to discriminate against one or more of Its employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the amended Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the amended Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] MARSHALL CAR WHEEL AND FOUNDRY CO. OF MAR- SHALL, TEXAS, INC. and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No . 16-GA-443. May 28, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 13, 19531 Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis- missed with respect thereto.' Thereafter, the Respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com- t In the absence of exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that the Respondent independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint with respect thereto. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. 105 NLRB No. 32.