The Stanley Works

7 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Harris did not work a regular full or part -time schedule, Harris was a contingent employee whose work history and job status demonstrates that she has a regular employee ' s interest in the outcome of the election.' No exception has been filed to his finding. We therefore overrule the challenge to Harris' ballot. The "void" ballot: The Board has examined the certain disputed ballot which was declared void by the Board' s agent at the election over the Petitioner' s objection , and which the Regional Director submitted to the Board. We believe that, inasmuch as the number of "X's" may be either mean- ingless lines or crossings out of what may have been an original "X," the intent of the voter is not clearly expressed on the face of the ballot. We find, therefore , that this ballot is void. It appears that the Petitioner has clearly received a majority of the valid votes cast . Because the ballot of Harris will not affect the results of the election , we shall not direct that it be opened and counted . We therefore certify the Pe- titioner as exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit. (The Board certified Retail Clerks' Union, Local 137, Retail Clerks' International Association , AFL, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees of Weill' s, Inc., Bakersfield, California.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. 6 Bonwit Teller & Company, 101 NLRB 358. THE STANLEY WORKS and LODGE 1433 OF THE INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Case No. 1-CA-1407. May 5, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On November 13, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices , as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto , but recommending , for the reasons set forth in the Intermediate Report, that the complaint be dismissed . There- after the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, and the Respondent filed a reply to the Union's exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was 108 NLRB No. 102. THE STANLEY WORKS 735 committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report , the Union's exceptions, the Respondent' s reply , and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and ex- ceptions: 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that , under the cir- cumstances fully detailed in the Intermediate Report , the Re- spondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by its conduct on November 25, 1952, in posting a notice in the plant announcing its intention to discontinue the payment of the customary Christmas bonus a year hence in 1953.1 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's conduct of the strike poll constituted , under all the circum- stances, a violation of Section 8 (a (5) and ( 1) of the Act. As set forth in the Intermediate Report , the Respondent and the Union had bargained to an impasse concerning a wage increase . The Union took the Respondent' s final offer to its membership , which rejected it and set a strike date. After reading of the impending strike in the newspapers , and re- ceiving inquiries about it from customers for whom it was engaged in defense production , the Respondent engaged a certified public accountant to conduct a strike poll among its employees . The accountant sent each of the Respondent's employees a letter , printed on Respondent' s stationery and set forth in the Intermediate Report , which referred to a previous letter stating in detail the terms of the Respondent's final offer, urged the employees to accept the offer and avoid a strike , stated that there is "a very real limit as to what a Company can grant" and that such limit was reached in its final offer , and asked the employees to mark and return to the accountant, unsigned, an enclosed post card printed as follows: To vote to accept the Company's final offer and continue working on and after March 10 , mark here q To vote to refuse the Company's final offer and to go out on strike on and after March 10, mark here q The results of the poll were published in a local newspaper. The strike did not occur. While an employer may, without violating the Act, inform the employees of the status of its negotiations with a union, 2 or even urge the employees to persuade union leadership to .1 The Union excepted to the Trial Examiner's resolution of conflicting testimony as to what took place at the subsequent bargaining conferences. As we are not convinced, on a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence, that the Examiner's resolution was incorrect, we find this exception without merit. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544. 2 North Electric Manufacturing Co., 123 F. 2f 887 (C. A. 6); The Jacobs Manufacturing Company, 94 NLRB 1214. 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD accept its last offer ,3 an employer may not bypass the exclu- sive bargaining representative by dealing directly with the employees on bargainable subject matters. In this case, the Respondent appealed directly to the employees themselves to accept the final offer, which the Union's membership had already rejected , and asked each employee to advise it by ballot of his position on this issue, coupling his acceptance or rejection of the final offer with an expression of his prefer- ence for continuing to work or strike . We believe that such conduct by the Respondent is tantamount to dealing directly with the employees on the issue of wages, in derogation of the exclusive status of the duly designated bargaining repre- sentative . By such conduct the Respondent violated the statutory mandate to deal only with the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative , in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and also 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4 We do not , however , agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent' s action in conducting the poll, involving as it did all 3,800 employees in the unit, should be regarded as an isolated incident not warranting the issuance of a remedial order.5 Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1 ) of the Act by bargaining directly with its employees in derrogation of the certified exclusive bargaining representative, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom. However, since the Respondent has in all other respects bargained in good faith with the Union , we find that the Re- spondent' s conduct does not demonstrate a general opposition to the purposes and policies of the Act , and we shall therefore order the Respondent only to cease and desist from engaging in the conduct which we have found violative of the Act and any like or related conduct. ORDER U on the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Stanley Works, New Britain, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 3 Tri-County Employer's Association, 103 NLRB 653 ; Joseph E. Cote, d/b/a J. E. Cote, 101 NLRB 1486; Times Publishing Company, 72 NLRB 676. 4See Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company , 106 NLRB 939. Cf. N. L. R. B v. Black- Clawson Co., 210 F. 2d 523 (C. A. 6), where the union acquiesed in the employer 's direct dealing with employees regarding its proposed retirement plan. 5 See The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 98 NLRB 1122. There is nothing in the record to support the Trial Examiner 's assertion, which is denied in the Union's ex- ceptions, that the parties ironed out any difficulties which may have arisen as a result of the poll. In any event if there were a subsequent agreement between the parties, that would not necessarily render the case moot or affect the Board's power, in its discretion , to issue a remedial order . N. L. R. B. v. American Insurance Company , 343 U. S. 395. THE STANLEY WORKS 737 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Bargaining directly with its employees in disregard of Lodge 1433 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL, the certified exclusive bargaining representative of all its employees in the production and maintenance unit with respect to rates of pay, wages , and other conditions of employment. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in New Britain, Connecticut , copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by posting the notice of November 25, 1952, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Members Rodgers and Beeson took no part in the consider- ation of the above Decision and Order. 6In 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 EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT bargain directly with our employees in disregard of Lodge 1433 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL, the certified bargaining represen- tative for the production and maintenance unit. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce any employees in the 339676 0 - 55 - 48 738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. THE STANLEY WORKS Employer 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 Upon a charge duly filed by Lodge 1433 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL. herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued his complaint dated June 30, 1953, against the Stanley Works herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce with- in the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the Re- spondent (1) on or about November 25, 1952, unilaterally without consultation with the Union advised its employees, some of whom are in the unit represented by the Union for collective- bargaining purposes, that it would not pay a Christmas bonus in 1953; and (2) on or about February 28, 1953, unilaterally without consultation with the Union conducted a poll of the employees in a described unit for the purpose of circumventing and undermining the Union as the said employees' exclusive representative. By this conduct the Respondent allegedly interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Aclj. The Respondent's answer, duly filed, admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. By way of defense, the answer affirma- tively averred that after notice to the employees that it would not pay a Christmas bonus in 1953, the Respondent, at the Union's request, entered into collective-bargaining negotiations with reference to granting a Christmas bonus to employees in 1953, which negotiations took place at various meetings and conferences over a period of several months. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at New Britain, Connecticut, on August 17, 1953, be- fore the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union were represented at the hearing and all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The parties were given the opportunity to present oral argument before the Trial Examiner and to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law. A brief has been received from counsel for the Respondent which has been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The complaint alleges and the answer admits that The Stanley Works, a Connecticut corpo- ration has its principal office and place of business in New Britain, Connecticut, where it maintains a plant hereinafter called the New Britain plant, and is engaged in the manufacture of builder's hardware. During the 12-month period preceding the hearing the Respondent shipped finished products valued in excess of $ 500,000 to points outside the State of Connecti- cut. It is hereby found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. THE STANLEY WORKS 739 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Lodge 1433 of the International Association of Machinists , AFL, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Facts The Respondent employs approximately 5,800 persons at its New Britain plants. The Union was certified in 1945 as the collective-bargaining representative of an appropriate unit approximating 3,800 employees and has continued to represent the said employees to the present date. In addition, Hardware Lodge No. 1249, International Association of Machinists, represents an appropriate unit consisting essentially of Respondent's craft workers, number- ing approximately 500 employees. The remainder of the Respondent's employees in New Britain are not represented by any collective-bargainuig agent. The collective-bargaining agreement presently in effect between the Respondent and the Union was entered into on January 21, 1952. It contains in Section 28.4 a wage reopening clause. On November 25, 1952, the Respondent without prior consultation with the Union, posted on its plant bulletin board a letter as follows: To all employees: The Board of Directors has authorized a year and extra payment of 40 hours pay to those in the employ of the Company on June 22, 1952, and who continue in our employ the week of December 8, 1952. The rate per hour will be the straight time earning rate for the 5 weeks ending November 1. Those entering the employ of the Company after June 2 and before September 29 will receive a payment of 20 hours pay fixed on the same basis as above. No extra payment will be made to those entering our employ on or after September 29, 1952. Company employees who have left us since June 22, 1952, and who have joined the Armed Services of the United States will receive payment as though still in our employ. Payment will be made during the week beginning December 8. This year end extra has been paid heretofore at the discretion of the Board of Directors when unusual earnings for the year have made it possible. This year the earnings of the Company do not justify the extra payment, but it is being paid with the understanding that it will not be paid in 1953 or thereafter. The Company recognizes and gratefully acknowledges the loyalty and cooperation of its employees during these disturbed times and wishes each a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. By order of the Board of Directors. s/ J. C. Cairns The record reveals also that the Respondent has made year-end payments i to its employees from 1937 through 1952 with the exception of the year 1938. At no time in the years 1945 to 1952 during which period Christmas bonuses were paid to the employees did the Union request the Respondent to negotiate the amount of such year-end payments or did it question the post- ing of notices by the Respondent concerning the year-end payments. On November 26, 1952, the Union, pursuant to the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, notified the Respondent of its desire to meet with it to discuss the wage reopening permitted under the contract. Pursuant to suchnoticetherepresentativesoftheUnion and the Respondent met on December 10, 1952, at which time the Union presented a group of proposals including among others the following: In 1953 a bonus or year-end payment be made to the employees equivalent to the bonus paid in 1952; an allowable cost-of-livingadjustment; an 8 cents an hour general wage in- crease subject to Wage Stabilization Board approval; certain holiday pay; and correction of intraplant inequities. Thereafter negotiation meetings were held between the Union and Respond- ent's representatives on December 19, 1952, January 9, 14, 28, and February 2 and 11, 1953. In the meeting of December 19 the Respondent, through its labor relations manager, George Rawlings, proposed that the cost of living increase, the general wage increase, and the 'The terms year-end payments and Christmas bonus are used herein interchangeably. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Christmas bonus for 1953 be considered and dealt with in a package deal as a single item of wages?„During the negotiations at subsequent meetings, there were repeated discussions about the Christmas bonus for 1953. At a membership meeting on February 2, the Union reported the results of the nego- tiations to date. A vote was also taken to request strike sanction from the International. During the negotiation meeting on February 11, the Union representatives reported that its membership had rejected the Respondent's proposals. The Respondent modified its pro- posals to some extent. On February 16, separate meetings were held between Union representatives, Respondent representatives, and the mediation services of the Federal and State governments. On this day the Union was advised that the Respondent would make no further concessions with respect to the proposals offered on February 11. On February 23, the Union reported the Respondent's final proposals to its member- ship. It also made known that it was at an impasse with the Respondent and asked the mem- bership to set a strike date which was set for March 10. The New Britian Herald, a news- paper, on several occasions carried reports that strike action had been voted by the Union for March 10. As a result of the newspaper reports regarding the strike action voted by the Union several of the Respondent's customers including the United States Navy, the Ordnance Department of the Department of Defense, and the General Electric Company, inquired whether a strike would interrupt production, and whether it would meet its work schedules. On the basis of the newspaper reports and its customers' inquiries the Respondent engaged one William H. Day, a certified public accouniant, to conduct a poll among its employees in the unit represented by the Union to determine their sentiment on acceptance of the Respondent's final offer and to continue work, or to reject the Respondent's offer and go out on strike on March 10. Day then sent a letter printed on the Respondent's stationary and a postal-card ballot to all of the employees in the unit represented by the Union. The letter was as follows: February 26, 1953 To All Stanley Workers Represented by Local No. 1433 IAM: On February 18th we sent you a letter enclosing the Company's final offer to IAM Union Locals No. 1249 and No. 1433. Since then our offer has been accepted by Local 1249 by a vote of 281 to 146. In this decision about 4 out of 5 employees represented by this Local voted. On the other hand, Local 1433 turned down the Company's final offer and voted to strike March 10th by a vote of 721 to 356. The Company's offer to Local 1433 costs the Company one cent more per hour than the offer accepted by Local 1249. It is also far more costly to the Company because of the much larger number of employees involved. Local 1433 has been authorized to represent 3790 of our employees. Of the 3790 directly involved only about 1 out of 4 voted at all, and only 1 out of 5 voted to turn down the Company's final offer and to go out on strike. This minority vote to strike can hardly represent the choice of all of those who will be out of work as its result. Mindful of what a strike will mean to our employees, to the Company and to the City of New Britain, the Company wants to have a secret vote by all employees represented by Local 1433. Accordingly, we have asked Mr. William H. Day, Certified Public Accountant, of 27 West Main Street, to supervise and conduct a secret vote by mail. 2 This finding is based on the testimony of Rawlings which I credit. Edmund Peresluha, In- ternational Grand Lodge Representative of the Union, at one point denied that the Respondent proposed that the Christmas bonus for 1953 would be considered by it in whatever wage in- crease it granted the employees. When asked again whether the Respondent said that since all of the three demands, i.e., the allowable cost-of-living adjustment, the general wage increase, and the Christmas bonus for 1953 had an effect on wages, that they be lumped together and considered as one, Peresluha answered, "No, it wasn't put to us that way." Peresluha admitted that at the meetings subsequent to December 19, the representatives of the parties discussed the question of a Christmas bonus for 1953. THE STANLEY WORKS 741 Mr. Day will see that this letter, with a return ballot enclosed , is sent only to the 3790 employees which Local 1433 has been authorized to represent and to no one else. The ballot is to be returned by mail to Mr. Day , not to the Stanley Works. He will determine and certify the result of the voting and publish it in the New Britain Herald. The ballot should not be signed. No ballot is valid or will be counted unless it carries an identification placed thereon by Mr. Day. The result of this secret ballot is in no way binding upon Local 1433 . This Local has been legally authorized to represent you in whatever way they choose. We believe, however, that they should honestly want to fairly represent the wishes of the majority of those for whom they speak. Your vote will help them do so. Finally, the Company wishes to remind you that there is no limit to what a Union may demand . There is, however , a very real limit to what a company can grant. It is this Company 's firm conviction that such a limit is reached in the Stanley Works final offer to Local 1433. We hope you will vote to accept that offer in the interest of all concerned . The time grows short to avoid a costly, needless and unwise strike. Vote as you see fit, but by all means vote and mail the ballot promptly. For The Stanley Works /s/ R. E. Pritchard /s/ W. L. Morse Chairman of the Board Executive Vise President The post-card ballot contained the following: To vote to accept the Company's final offer and continue working on and after March 10, mark here 1 To vote to refuse the Company's final offer and to go out on strike on and after March 10, mark here 0 Please mail this ballot by Monday night, March 2. The post-card ballots were returned to William Day, whose office address was printed on the card. The results of the poll were thereafter published in the New Britain Herald. The record reveals that neither a work stoppage nor a strike was engaged in by the em- ployees on March 10 , 1953, or at any time thereafter. Conclusions One of the principles most deeply rooted in the law governing labor relations is that the "employer 's duty to bargain with the statutory representative of his employees includes the duty to refrain from taking unilateral action with respect to matters which are proper subjects for collective bargaining." a Equally well established is the doctrine that the award of a Christmas bonus , a pension , and group and hospitalization insurance are emoluments of value which constitute part of the "wages ... or other conditions of employment" con- cerning which Section 8 (d) of the Act requires an employer to bargain with his employees and in connection with which he may not take unilateral action. Inland Steel Company, 77 NLRB 1, enfd. 170 F. 2d 247 (C. A. 7), cert. den. 336 U. S. 960; W. W. Cross and Company, Inc., 77 NLRB 1162 , enfd . 174 F. 2d 875 (C. A. 1); General Motors, 81 NLRB 779; Tidewater Associated Oil Company , 85 NLRB 1096 ; Niles-Bement -Pond Company , 97 NLRB 165, enfd. 199 F. 2d 713 (C. A. 2); Nash-Finch Company, 103 NLRB 1695. It is the General Counsel's position that the unilateral action of the Respondent on Novem- ber 25 , 1952 , notifying its employees that the year -end extra payments would not be paid in 1953 or thereafter was a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and that neither subsequent nego- tiations nor action by the Respondent on the bonus issue "cures " the violation. I can- not agree. We are not confronted in the instant situation merely with the cut and dried posting of the notice and nothing further. On the contrary the Respondent met with the Union on at least 3The Board 's Fourteenth Annual Report, page 75; Fifteenth Annual Report , page 122; Sixteenth Annual Report, page 199; Seventeenth Annual Report, page 168, and cases cited therein. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Six occasions after the notice was posted and did in fact bargain, among other issues, on the very issue regarding which it posted the notice. It would be counter to the underlying purposes of the Act and contribute nothing toward the prevention of industrial strife to ignore the subsequent actions of the Respondent. Indeed , if the General Counsel's contention was accepted it would, as the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said in the J. H. Allison and Co. case, 166 F. 2d 66 " . . . be disruptive rather than fostering in its effect upon collective bargaining, the national desideratum disclosed in the broad term of the first sec- tion of the National Labor Relations Act." Upon the record as a whole and upon the foregoing it will be recommended that the al- legations of the complaint dealing with the posting of the notice on November 25, 1952, under the circumstances herein be dismissed. We turn next to the question of the Respondent's conduct of a strike poll among the em- ployees represented by the Union, alleged in the complaint to have been for the purpose of circumventing and undermining the Union as the employees' exclusive representative and therefore in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent defends its action on the grounds that: (1) The strike vote taken by the Union and publicized in the local press represented the sentiment of only a small portion of its employees; and (2) the purpose of the strike poll was to enable it to determine whether or not it should operate its plant and maintain production in the event of a threatened strike. The Respondent contends further in its brief that since there was an admitted impasse in negotiations with the Union, it was not improper for it to obtain an expression of its em- ployees' sentiment by secret ballot to determine whether or not it should anticipate closing its plant, curtailing production, and failing to meet its responsibility to its customers according to established production schedules. Recognizing the Respondent's responsibilities, the law nevertheless is now well estab- lished that an employer may not dealwiththe employees while there is in exist ice, and with- out the voluntary approval of, a majority representative. See May Department Stores Co. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 276; Medo Photo Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678. The vice in the Respondent's conduct in asking the employees, instead of their union, whether they wished to strike is that the employer thereby attempts to detract from the authority of the chosen bargaining agent and, in effect, refuses to accord to the majority representative of the employees that exclusive recognition which the statute makes mandatory . See Reeder Motor Co., 96 NLRB 831. Further, as the Board held in its recent decision in the Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Company case, 106 NLRB 939, "employees' designation of a collective-bargaining representative and the Board's certification thereof would be futile and meaningless, could an employer, shortly thereafter, at any designated stage of the bar- gaining process, demand proof that the exclusive representative was acting in accordance with the desire of the employees." Accordingly I find that the Respondent's conduct of the strike poll was violative of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. See Rozelle Show Corporation, 100 NLRB 117, enfd. 205 F. 2d 447 (C. A. 1). From all that appears in the record, however, the parties eventually ironed out any difficulties which may have arisen as a result of the strike poll taken by each, and no strike took place. Apart from the issue here involved, the Union and the Re- spondent appear to enjoy stable and harmonious labor relations and no danger appears that these relations will be disrupted by the Respondent's isolated violation. Under these circumstances, I find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to issue a remedial order based upon such conduct alone.4 It is therefore recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Stanley Works, New Britain, Connecticut, is engaged in and at all times material herein has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Lodge 1433 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 4See Bob Morgan Motor Company, Inc., 106 NLRB 334; cf. Crown Zellerbach Corporation, 95 NLRB 753. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO 743 3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO andits agents, EARL McGREW AND FRANK R. METZGER and LOCAL 1172, TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, and its agents, FRANK R. METZGER, ANTON DVORSCAK, and FRANK TURK and PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION. Case No. 13-CB-229, May 5, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On October 6, 1953, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (3), and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto . Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Respondents, the Charging Party, and the CIO, which had been granted permission to file a brief as amicus curiae, filed briefs in support of their contentions . On January 19, 1954 , the Board granted the Respondents ' request for oral ar- gument, which it heard on February 23, 1954. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and 1The Respondents contend that they were denied due process by the followings rulings, among others: (1) The admission into evidence of the deposition taken from Dorcie Whisler; (2) the grant of the General Counsel's motion orally to amend the complaint during the hearing; (3) the denial of their motion for a 10-day adjournment because of this amendment; (4) the partial denial of their request for a bill of particulars; and (5) an asserted lack of "notice of the legal elements of their alleged guilt," admittedly to be 'measured by a principle of law as yet unwritten." These contentions are without merit. As to (1), the deposition reveals that the Respondents were permitted to, and did, examine and cross-examine Whisler and that the deposition was otherwise taken in compliance with the provisions of Section 102.30 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Respondents object to the deposition primarily because Whisler refused to testify whether he had discussed his testimony with counsel. Although the Trial Examiner apparently credited Whisler, his testimony is both internally consistent and elsewhere corroborated, either in detail testimony or from the logic of the events established in the record. Accordingly we find that the Trial Examiner did not abuse the discretion given him by Section 102.30 (d) to rule upon the admissibility of the deposition. With respect to (2), the amendments. during the hearing reflected developments subsequent to the issuance of the original complaint and did not allege violations of additional provisions of the Act. There is no real contention that the Respondents were denied ample opportunity to defend or that the additional matters alleged in the complaint were not actually litigated. Accordingly, we find that these amendments were proper. National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, etc., 90 NLRB 1099, at footnote 2. As to (3), the record establishes that the request was denied with the understanding that the Respondents might, attheconcluSion of the General Counsel's case, 108 NLRB No. 109.