Connor Foundry Co.

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or- ganizations, to join or assist UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization,. to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (;) of the Act. WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed: Anne Karamourtopoulos Irene Harvey Doris Gagnon Henry Hyder Dorilda Pacquette Clyde Wheeler WE WILL make whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our dis- crimination, the.following employees: Anne Karamourtopoulos Irene Harvey Doris Gagnon Henry Hyder Dorilda Pacquette Clyde Wheeler Doris Isabelle All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. ROZELLE SHOE CORPORATION, Emploper. Dated---------------------------------- By----------------------------- i(Representative) (Title) NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. NEIL J. KUNST, LLOYD NORTON AND LORETTA S. KUNST, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY, A CO-PARTNERSHIP and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO and CONNOR FOUN- DRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Case No. 7-CA- 614. JuZy 14, 1952 Decision and Order On December 277 1951 , Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac- 100 NLRB No. 28. CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY 147 tices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act, and recominending that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirma- tive action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. - Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 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 Respondents' exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Neil J. Kunst, Lloyd Norton and Loretta S. Kunst, co-partners, d]b/a Connor Foundry Company, a co-partnership, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all their employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (b) Dominating, interfering with, or supporting the administra- tion of Connor Foundry Employees' Union, or the formation and administration of any other labor organization. (c) Recognizing Connor Foundry Employees' Union as a represent- ative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the ' We do not accept the Trial Examiner 's inference in section III, C, of the Intermediate Report that a member of management gave Curtiss the check list of employees used at the election Our disaf iirmance of this portion of the Trial Examiner's findings has no effect upon our affirmance of his finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act by dominating, interfering with, and supporting the formation and adminis- tration of Connor Foundry Employees' Union. 3 For the Trial Examiner's conclusions contained in the last paragraph of section III, A, of the Intermediate Report, the Board substitutes the following . The Respondents, by their conduct in attempting to induce their employees to disavow the Union at the April 7 meeting , at which the employees were plied with refreshments and liquor by the Respond- ents and told that steps would be taken to grant them a wage increase , and thereafter by putting into effect a general wage increase , violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act in that they discouraged self-organization and interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 227260-53-vol . 100-11 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (d) Giving effect to any agreement, supplement thereto or modi- fication or renewal thereof, with Connor Foundry Employees' Union. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected by agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : ' (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, Connor Foundry Employees' Union, as the representa- tive of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any other conditions of employment. (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. (c) Post at their Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond- ents' authorized representative, be posted by the Respondents immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region. in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order what steps the Respondents have taken to comply therewith. t 3 This notice, however , shall be and hereby is amended by striking from the first para- graph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order " In the event 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE 149 Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named copartnership, herein called the Respondents, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, by the Respondents, was held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on December 3 and 4, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. In substance, the complaint alleges that the Respondents in 1951: (1) Begin- ning in May formed, dominated, and supported Connor Foundry Employees' Union, herein called the Independent; (2) since May have refused to bargain collectively with the Union although it has at all times since May 8 been the ex- clusive bargaining representative of all employees in an appropriate unit; (3) by various acts have threatened reprisals and given benefits to discourage union membership and activity; and (4) by this and other conduct have inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to employees by the Act. At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. General Counsel argued orally. Briefs have been received from the Independent and the General Counsel. 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 RESPONDENTS The Respondents are a copartnership having their office and foundry in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where they operate a gray iron foundry. Principal raw materials used are pig iron, coke , cast iron, steel , scrap, and molding sand. During the year 1950 the Respondents bought materials valued at more than $150,000, of which about 50 percent was shipped to the foundry from points outside the State of Michigan . During the same period the Respondents sold finished castings valued at more than $400,000, of which about 3 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Michigan . During the same period the Respondents sold finished castings valued at more than $200,000 to the following customers for incorporation into their products, each of which cus- tomers during the same period sold and shipped products in interstate commerce valued at more than $100,000: Hudson Motor Car Company , Detroit, Michigan ; Continental Motors Corporation , Muskegon , Michigan ; Motor Wheel Corpora- tion, Lansing, Michigan ; and John Wood Manufacturing Company, Muskegon, Michigan. The Respondents concede that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, and Connor Foundry Employees' Union are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondents. 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The'Respondents'. interference with self-organization About March 1, 1951, employees of the Respondents sought assistance of the Union in self-organization A meeting for this purpose was held March 3, when about 40 authorization cards were signed. On March 5 the Union wrote to the Respondents, claiming representation of a majority of the foundry employees (numbering about 45), and requesting to negotiate concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The Respondents tailed either to question the claim or to answer the request. On March 6 the Union filed a petition for certification with the Board's Regional Office, and the Respondents concede having received both the letter from the Union and the notice from the Board of the filing of the petition. The Trial Examiner finds that on or about March 6 the Respondents were aware of the Union's claim that it represented a majority of their eiupioyee5. The Respondents, however, particularly through Lloyd Norton, a partner and general manager, promptly began an open campaign to deprive the employees of rights accorded them by the Act Norton even appealed to another Govern- ment agency to assist the Respondents in their efforts to defeat purposes of the Act. On March 15 he wrote to the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Public Contracts Division, asking for permission to install an incentive plan, saying: We have no Union. However there are definite indications of labor troubles unless we can correct this inequality in our core room. We feel that this dissatisfaction can be eliminated if our request is granted. Having ignored the Union's request to bargain, Norton finally met with Board and union representatives but declined to consent to a Board election. The Regional Office set April 25 as a hearing (late on the representation petition in Case No. 7-RC-1309. Before the hearing, however, Norton made 2 additional moves against self- organization and for the plain and openly avowed purpose of discouraging union membership. Personally and through other management representatives he prevailed upon about 35 of his employ ees, on their own time, to attend a meeting called by himself at a local hall, where he provided refreshments and liquor, and at which he told them, in part: Inasmuch as there is organizing going on at the shop at this time I cannot negotiate with you nor promise anything . . . We do not want a Union m our shop . . . I applied for an increase in wages. In part this is the re- ply I got from the U. S. Department of Labor. Quote "The procedure for filing applications for increases has not been formulated, therefore you are advised to keep in touch with the Grand Rapids Field Office (Emphasis supplied.) Within a week after this meeting, and despite Norton's quotation from the Department of Labor letter, he put into i ffict, on April 13, a general wage increase for the employees. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the following conduct of Norton, designed to discourage self-organization, interfered with, restrained. and coerced the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act: Attempting to induce employees to disavow the Union at the meeting of April 7 and by plying them with refreshments and liquor, and by putting into effect a general wage increase at a time when the Union claimed to represent a majority of the CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY 151 .employees and following his thinly veiled announcement that the raise he was seeking was to discourage union activity. B. Coercion at the Board election The Board conducted an election at the foundry on May 8. The testimony of employee Sam Dock is undisputed, and the Trial Examiner finds that on the day of-the election his foreman, Ed De Graff, asked him how he was going to vote and warned him, "If I was you I wouldn't vote for the Union." Later the same day De Graff told Dock that Kunst, one of the partners, "was talking about selling the place." De Graff's remarks were clearly designed to coerce employees in the exercise of free choice at a Board-conducted election, and constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act. C. Formation, domination, and support of the Independent William Staniulis, a maintenance employee, was the Respondents' observer at the Board election, which the Union won by a small majority. The day after the election employee Kenneth Curtiss was given the check list of the Respondents used at the election, and it is reasonably inferred and found that Curtiss received it from some member of management' During working hours Curtiss proceeded to circulate among the employees and to ask them if they wanted to join an inside union. According to his testimony he checked off a number of names on the list and then gave the list to Staniulis. Staniulis. Curtiss, and two other employees then went into Norton' s office, and Norton gave them a bankbook having on deposit a sum of more than $400- a sick and flower benefit fund which for several years had been held and dis- tributed by the Respondents and which had accumulated both from weekly contributions made by employees and from profits received by the Respondents from vending machines of cigarettes, candy, etc. According to his own testi- mony Norton formally turned the fund, which had until then been under his jurisdiction, over to these employees by having the signature cards at the bank changed, on June 5. Money from this fund was drawn, after May 8, by Curtiss to defray refreshment and hall expenses for meetings of the Independent. Since May 8, also according to Norton's testimony, the Respondents have contributed to the Independent all profits from the use of the vending machines in the plant. It is concluded and found that the Respondents have, by thus contributing funds to the Independent, financially supported its formation and administration. On May 22, Staniulis gave Norton a letter, obviously prepared for him, signed by himself and three other employees, claiming that they were a "committee elected by the independent union" and claiming to represent a majority of the employees. According to Staniulis' testimony, however, no election or organiza- tion meeting was held until June 2. According to Norton's testimony, he thereafter recognized and bargained with the Independent, and on some date which he said he could not remember signed a written agreement 2 with it concerning wages and vacations. He admitted at 1 The testimony of both Curtiss and Staniulis, as well as that of Lloyd Norton, con- cerning events surrounding the formation of the independent is confused , mutually con- tradictory, and wholly untrustworthy. Curtiss said he found the list on the company dump while looking for a piece of paper to write upon. At various times Staniulis in his testimony said he put the list in the wastebasket and that he placed it on the desk of a member of management. 2 The agreement, in evidence, bears no date of execution. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the 'hearing that he was still bargaining with this organization. He further admitted that he thus recognized and bargained with the Independent, without election (and so far as the record shows without any real effort to ascertain whether or not the Independent represented a majority), although he had re- fused to bargain with the Union even after the Board's certification of it. By recognizing, bargaining with, and entering into a collective bargaining agreement in the Independent, the Respondents further assisted it. It is undisputed that both Norton and De Graff, in effect, urged employees to join the Independent. When employee Eugene Hemphill asked Norton for an advance on his pay, Norton refused, saying "You guys got the Union in now, and I decided to quit lending advances," and then asked Hemphill if he had seen Staniulls who, he said, "is getting up a company union now." Foreman De Graff urged employee Frank Enoch, who was the union observer at the election, to get his "guys" together and go to a meeting then being planned by Curtiss to form the Independent. It is likewise undisputed that De Graff told employee Frank Adams to see Staniulis who, De Graff told him, was organizing a "comr pany union." De Graff also told Adams that he would "like for as many to sign it as possible," referring to the check list above described. De Graff then told Adams that "if the CIO stayed in" some of the employees might be laid off but, that Adams would not be laid off if he "would follow along with management." By this conduct of management officials the Respondents have further supported the organization of the Independent' By the conduct above described, so openly in defiance of the Board election on May 8 and the Board's certification of the Union on June 4, the Respondents plainly have dominated, interfered with, and supported the formation and ad- ministration of the Independent, and thereby have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. D. The refusal to bargain As noted above, on June 4, 1951, the Board certified the Union as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit : All production and maintenance employees at the Grand Rapids plant, ex- cluding office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that at all times since May 8, 1951, when the Union won the majority at the Board election, the Union has been and now is the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above-de- scribed unit. As a witness, Norton freely admitted that he has refused to bargain with the Union, despite the Board certification, but that he has, on the contrary, recog- nized and bargained with and is still bargaining with the Independent. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondents have continuously refused and are refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit. 8 Not only because Staniulis was the Respondents' appointed representative at the election, but also because management officials openly urged employees "to see" him, pointing out that he was starting a company union, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that in organizing and leading the Independent, Staniulis was serving as a representative of management, and that for his activity in this respect the Respondents must be held accountable. (Reed and Prince Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 850 ) CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY 153 E. Discrimination in granting of advances in pay As noted in section C, above, Norton refused employee Hemphill an advance on his pay, in effect telling him that he was doing so because the employees had selected the Union as their bargaining agent. It is undisputed and the Trial Examiner finds that Superintendent Richard Babcock, when employee Edward Flowers asked for a small advance on his pay shortly after the election, told him "No," after seeing Norton. Credible evidence establishes that before the election the Respondents frequently granted employees such advances, and it is concluded and found that by discriminatorily discontinuing this practice, to discourage union membership, the Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondents dominated, interiered with, and supported the formation and administration of the Independent, and executed a collective bargaining agreement with it. The effect of such coercive conduct will not be remedied if the contract is permitted to remain in effect. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondents withdraw and withhold all recogiution from, completely disestablish, and cease giving effect to their agree- ment with, the Independent. Nothing in these recommendations shall be deemed to require the Respondents to vary or abandon those wage, hour, or other sub- stantive features of their relations with their employees established in per- formance of said contract, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights they may have under such agreement. It has been found that the Respondents have refused and are refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in an appropriate unit. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom and, also, that upon request they bargain collectively with the Union with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, for all employees in the appropriate unit. The nature of the Respondents' unfair labor practices is such that the com- mission of other unfair labor practices may reasonably be expected ; it will therefore be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, and Connor Foundry Employees' Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of section 2 (5) of the Act. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By dominating, interfering with, and supporting the formation and ad- ministration of Connor Foundry Employees' Union , the Respondents have en- gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (2) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondents at their Grand Rapids plant, excluding office and clerical employees , guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, was on May 8, 1951, and at all times since has been the exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Union , United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume ] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 HEREBY DISESTABLISH CONNOR FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES ' UNION as the repre- sentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con- cerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment, or other conditions of employment , and we will not recognize it or any suc- cessor thereto for any of the above purposes. WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all agreements and contracts, sup- plements thereto, or modifications thereof , or any superseding contract with CONNOR FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, or any successor thereto. WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay , hours of em- ployment, or other conditions of employment. The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees at our Grand Rapids plant, excluding office and clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor THE AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA 155 organization, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, U NITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through represent- atives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. NEIL J. KUNST, LLOYD NORTON AND LORETTA S. KUNST, Co-Partners, d/b/a CONNOR FOUNDRY COMPANY, a co-partnership, Employer. Dated ---------------------------------- By ------------------------------ (Representative ) i(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. THE AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORK- ERS, CIO. Case No. 6-CA-515. July 14, 1954 Decision and Order On February 28, 1952, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, The Board" has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby -affirmed.; - The Board has considered the Intermediate Re- port, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case,3 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 1 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. a The Trial Examiner rejected the Respondent's proffer of evidence pertaining to certain of the issues in this proceeding. As there is no contention or showing that such proffered evidence was not available to the Respondent at the time of the hearing in the earlier representation proceeding, this ruling is hereby affirmed. N. L. R. B. v. West Kentucky Coal Company, 152 F. 2d 198 (C. A. 6). 3 As the record and the exceptions and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the contentions of the parties, the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. 100 NLRB No. 36.