Bowmar Instrument Corp.

Bowmar Instrument Corporation and International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-92619. July 6, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On April 3, 1959, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive 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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. 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 entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications: I 1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re- spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act after the execution of the settlement agreement on February 27, 1958. In so finding, we rely only on the following actions of the Respondent: (a) The threat made on March 11, 1958, by Edward White, presi- dent of the Respondent, to employee Curts, by telling Curts that if Curts continued to favor the IUE, Curts would be nothing but ex- crement in White's road. (b) The threat made on March 12, 1958, by Foreman Robert Shinier to employee Lovelady, by telling Lovelady that if the Union got in, there would no longer be a profit-sharing plan for the employees. % We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are erroneous and should be overruled . As the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence does not demonstrate that the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings are incorrect, we hereby adopt them . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3). 124 NLRB No. 2. 525543-60-vol. 124-2 1 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) The intensive questioning, within a 2 -day period, March 11 and 12, 1958, by Foremen Shimer and Phillip Rodgers of employee Curts on six different occasions, as to whether he intended to vote for the Union in the coming election. (d) The other interrogation of employees by supervisory personnel, as set forth in the Intermediate Report. Contrary to the contention of the Respondent , we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that this interrogation including the per- sistent and intensive interrogation of Curts within a few days prior to the date set for a Board-conducted election , coupled with threats of reprisals created an atmosphere of coercion which tended to restrain, and interfere with, the, employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.2 2. We further find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act, prior to the settle- ment agreement of February 27, 1.958, as follows : 3 (a) On or about October 15 , 1957, Respond'ent's President White interfered with the distribution by Union Representatives Barrett and Smith of organizational literature, on a public sidewalk, to em- ployees leaving the plant, by telling them to leave and by taking possession of the leaflets until most of the employees had left. (b) On about , October 16 , 1957, President White told Union Representative Gould, over the telephone , that if distribution of the leaflets were resumed, there would be physical violence directed by the Respondent against those distributing it. (c) On October 17, 1957, Supervisor Young asked Union ,Repre- sentative Loewe to surrender to him all the pamphlets which Loewe was attempting to distribute to employees leaving the plant parking lot, and when Loewe refused, Young walked between the union repre- sentatives and the employees to prevent distribution of the leaflets and shouted out the names of those employees who accepted leaflets. (d) On January 20, 1958, President White told employee Lovelady that if the Union came into the plant , the employees would not have See N.L.R.B. v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F. 2d 596 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 347 U.S. 966, enfg. 103 NLRB 377. Cf. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591; Ballas Egg Products, Inc., 121 NLRB 873. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated the Act by its conduct in calling small groups of employees into President White's office and urging them to reject the Union, and having these conversa- tions recorded. The cases relied on by the Trial Examiner, Economic Machinery Com- pany, 111 NLRB 947, and Richards Container Corporation, 114 NLRB 1435, were repre- sentation cases in which the Board found that similar conduct constituted grounds for setting aside an election. The Board has held, however, that conduct which interferes with a free election does not necessarily constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (1). Hicks-Hayward Company, 118 NLRB 695. As found hereinabove, the interrogation which took place at such conferences is unlawful. 3 We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that in view of the unfair labor practices found -to have been committed by the Respondent after the execution of the settlement agreement, effectuation of the policies of the Act requires inclusion herein of our findings based on the Respondent's conduct prior to the settlement agreement. The Wallace Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 323 U.S. 248, and cases cited in the Intermediate Report. BOWMAR INSTRUMENT CORPORATION e) the benefits they then enjoyed; that if work got slack, instead of keep- ing the employees on, White would lay them off. THE REMEDY In view of the nature of the Respondent's conduct, we agree with the Trial Examiner that a broad cease and desist order is necessary in this case to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent's re- peated interrogation, threats of reprisals and violence, and, particu- larly, its breach of the settlement agreement, reveal a determination to defeat the self-organization of its employees going to the very heart of the Act. We therefore find that the commission in the future of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act may reasonably be anticipated from the Respondent's past conduct, and the preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. We shall also order the Respondent to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act, as recommended by the Trial Examiner.4 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations -Act, the National Labor .Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Bowmar Instrument Cor- poration, Fort Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Preventing or attempting to prevent the distribution of union circulars or pamphlets, or interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or co- ercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. (b) Threatening union representatives with violence, or threaten- ing its employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals for engaging in union activities. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities., except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a 4 L. C. Products, Inc., 112 NLRB 872. 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor organization as a condition of employment 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) Post at its plant at Fort Wayne, Indiana, copies of the notice. attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,. after being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said. notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. I 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT prevent, or attempt to prevent, the distribution of union circulars or pamphlets, or interrogate our employees con- cerning their membership in, or activities on behalf of, Inter- national Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten union representatives with violence, or threaten our employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals for engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter- national Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted 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 right may be affected •BOWMAR INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 5 by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above named or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right is affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con- dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. BOWMAR INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, 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 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge, and amended charges, filed by International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IUE or the Union, against Bowmar Instrument Corporation, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, issued a complaint, dated November 12, 1958, alleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The complaint alleges that since on or about October 15, 1957, and on various dates thereafter to on or about March 15, '1958, Respondent by specifically alleged misconduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights, guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. By its motion made on or about November 19, 1958, repeated during the course of the hearing before me, Respondent moved that the entire complaint be dismissed by reason of a settlement agreement entered into on February 27, 1958, between the IUE and Respondent, and approved by the Board's Regional Director. The General Counsel resisted said motions on the ground that certain conditions imposed by the -settlement agreement had not been met or complied with. The motions were denied by me for reasons that will hereafter appear. On or about November 24, 1958, Respondent filed its answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before me at Fort Wayne, Indiana, on February 10 and 11, 1959. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented at the hearing by counsel and the Charging Party by its representative. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and thereafter to file briefs. 'Subsequent to the hearing, the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which I have fully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, .1 make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE; THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and at all times herein material has been, an Indiana corporation with its principal office and place of business located at Fort Wayne, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of gears and related products. In the course and conduct of its business operations during the calendar year 1957, a representative period, Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $2,500,000, of which in excess of $1,500,000 was sold and shipped directly to customers located outside the State of Indiana. I find that Respondent is, and at all times herein material has been, engaged in commerce and has affected commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The IUE is, and at all times herein material has been , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On or about October 15, 1957, at 3:30 p.m., John Barrett, International repre- sentative of the IUE, and Curney Smith, stationed themselves on the public sidewalk adjacent to Respondent's factory and began the distribution of the Union's organiza- tionalleaflets to Respondent's day-shift employees who were then leaving the plant. A man came out of the factory, approached Barrett and Smith, and asked Barrett what the two men were doing. Barrett replied they were distributing the leaflets and showed him one of the circulars. The up-to-then unidentified man told Barrett and Smith to leave, that they had no business there, and, while being observed by other employees, grabbed the leaflets out of Barrett's hands and held on to the leaflets until after most of the day-shift employees departed. He then asked Smith for his name and the latter gave it to him. When Smith asked the man for his name, he said it was "Jones" but he was identified at the hearing herein as, and admitted to be, Edward White, president of Respondent. On the following day, George Gould, another International representative of the IUE, telephoned White and complained about the incident of the previous day. Gould informed White that the Union had been asked by the employees to organize Respondent's plant, that he expected to conduct further distribution of union leaflets and would like to conduct that distribution without interference by Respondent. White replied that if the distribution were resumed "there would be physical violence and it would be directed by the Company against those distributing literature." At about 3:30 p.m. of October 17, 1957, four representatives of the IUE, in separate groups of two, again engaged in the distribution of union leafllets on public property adjacent to the plant as employees were leaving at the close of the shift. As they were so engaged, James R. Young, admittedly employed by Respondent in a supervisory capacity, asked John Loewe, one of the pamphlet distributors, to sur- render all the pamphlets to Young. Loewe declined to do so. As he and Barrett continued their distribution, Young walked between them and the automobiles in which were seated the employees that Loewe and Barrett were seeking to circularize. If any occupant of the car accepted the leaflets, Young shouted his name to em- ployees stationed at the entrance to the plant "and they would write it down." On January 20, 1958, Clarence J. Lovelady went to White's office to complain about his failure to get a wage increase. When White assured him that he would personally see what could be worked out in that respect, Lovelady started to leave. When he got to the door, however, White called him back and said he wanted to talk to him. He told Lovelady that he knew that the latter had distributed leaflets and was supporting the IUE and that he wanted to know why. White added that if an international union came into the plant the employees would not have the benefits they then enjoyed, that if the amount of work got low, as it then was, and if the IUE got into the plant "instead of keeping the employees on [he] would lay them off. The facts heretofore found stand uncontradicted, as neither White, who was present during the entire hearing, nor Young, took the witness stand. It is accord- ingly found that by interfering with the Union's distribution of its leaflets I and by White's threat of reprisal if the IUE should come into the plant, Respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The facts heretofore found all relate to events that occurred prior to February 27, 1958, the date of the execution of a settlement agreement, which failed to become effective for reasons hereafter detailed. The findings that follow relate to conduct occurring after the execution of that agreement. On February 28, 1958, a consent-election agreement was signed by Respondent pursuant to which an election was scheduled for the following March 20 to designate a collective-bargaining representative for Respondent's employees. On March 10 employees Betty Patrick and Anne Andrews, and another employee identified only as L. D., were summoned by their foreman. David Hughes, to proce-d to White's office with him. After they were seated, White held up a recording device and informed the assembled group that a recording was being made of their conversation. He then asked the employees why they wanted a union in the plant. Both women i Watson Sea Food and Poultry Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 1369; Dan River Mills, Incorporated, 121 NLRB 645. BOWMAR INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 7 gave their reasons and White answered that "once [they ] got the Union in the plant that it would be like a woman losing her virginity , nothing would be the same." Four or five days later, Foreman Hughes approached Patrick's work table and asked her, Andrews , and employee Colleen Snyder who they were going to vote for at the coming election. A similar visit to White's office on March 10 was directed to employee Vernon Jefferson by his foreman , Clifford Creason . Also in attendance at this conference were employees Seitz, Kirby, and Waltenburg . White made the same use and ex- planation of the recording device described in the conference with Patrick and the other employees noted above . White stated that he noticed that they were wearing IUE badges and "he 'felf that [they] had a problem of concern to [them] and himself; . that any undesirable employee would find it rough in time by having a professional local brought in; . . . that if an undesirable employee was hard to get rid of, a phone call could be made to Mr. Gould , the IUE representative for this district, and an employee could be got rid of that way." On March 11 , 1958, employee Richard Curts , while working at his machine, was asked by his foreman, Rodgers, whether he "was still in favor of the IUE." Curts, who was wearing his IUE button, told him he was definitely for that organization. About 15 minutes later, White, accompanied by Rodgers , came to Curts' machine and told him that he saw that Curts was still in favor of the Union after all that they had done for him and "that it would not get [him ] anywhere, and if [he] con- tinued in the path that [ he] was going , that [he] would be nothing but [excrement] in [White's ] road." White added that he was "against any bastard union of any kind," but he would much rather see the employees organize their own union, and made mention of Tokheim , another employer in the vicinity, who, he said, "had a very workable union . made up by the employees." Within 15 minutes of this conversation , Curts took off his IUE button. Shortly thereafter on the same day, Rodgers came back to Curts and asked him if his talk with White had made him change his mind. Curts told him he would think further about the matter. Rodgers returned again to Curts' post during the morning of the following day and asked whether he had thought further about the discussion of the previous day and Curts replied that he had not. Rodgers then asked him whether he was "willing to go along with the company union." 2 About an hour later Curts observed J. Robert Shimer, foreman of the day shift ,3 engage several employees in conversation , "making the rounds," before approaching Curts at his machine. Shimer told Curts he was "taking a poll about how the Union is going to come out" and that they would like to know how he was going to vote. Curts declined to indicate his preference . Shortly after Shimer left, Rodgers, who was Curts' foreman, again approached Curls and asked him "point blank" how he was going to vote and how his talk with White "came along." On or about March 12, 1958 , employee Lovelady , who had previously been inter- rogated by White about his union activities and had been threatened with reprisals if the Union came into the plant, was questioned by Shimer as to why he wanted an international union in the plant and told that "if the IUE got in there , [ the em- ployees] wouldn't have a profit sharing plan." 4 Except for the unconvincing and uncredited testimony of Shimer that he did not poll the employees to ascertain how they were going to vote at the Board election, and that he expressed only his "personal opinion" that there would be no profit- sharing plan if the IUE came into the plant , all the facts found above are supported by uncontradicted evidence. Thus, neither President White , nor Supervisors Young, Hughes , nor Rodgers took the witness stand to deny , or give, any testimony pertain- ing to the conduct attributed to them by the General Counsel's witnesses. On the entire record I find that ( 1) by interfering with the distribution of IUE literature on or about October 15 and October 17, 1957; 5 ( 2) by threatening em- ployees with loss of benefits if the Union were designated as collective-bargaining 2 One of the unions on the ballot at the march 20 election was Bowmar Employees' Association. The facts pertaining to that election as found herein have been officially noticed from the Board ' s file in Bowmar Instrument Corporation, Case No. 13-RC-5871 (unpublished). 3 Curts was employed on the night shift. 4 Shimer testified that he told Lovelady it was merely his "opinion " that there would be no profit-sharing plan if the IUE came into the plant . He was , however , unable to offer any basis for that opinion . In any event , Lovelady and Curts whose versions of the conversation as 'found in the text are credited , impressed me as witnesses worthy of belief. Shimer did not. 5 See footnote 1, supra. 8 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agent ; ( 3) by interrogating its employees concerning their union membership and activities ; 6 (4) by individually calling employees to White's office while an election was pending for the purpose of urging them to reject the Union and having their conversation mechanically reported,7 Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 ( a)(1) thereof. There remains for discussion only the legal problem posed by the settlement agreement of February 27, 1958, and whether or not Respondent was entitled to a dismissal of the instant proceeding because of that agreement . By the terms thereof, Respondent agreed not only to post the required notices, but also agreed , inter alia, that it would not thereafter "in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce [its] employees in the exercise of their right to form labor organizations , to join or assist [the IUE] or any other labor organization." Notwithstanding this solemn pledge, presumably given in order to induce the signature of the IUE to the agreement and its approval by the Board's Regional Director, Respondent, within a period of approximately 2 weeks thereafter , at a critical time immediately preceding the elec- tion , engaged in the series of violations heretofore found and by which it again and further interfered with , restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their guaranteed rights and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By the terms of the settlement agreement the charge which was the subject of the settlement was not to be deemed withdrawn until "the Regional Director [was] satisfied that the provisions of [the] agreement have been carried out." It further specifically provided that "contingent upon compliance with the terms and provisions [t]hereof, no further action shall be taken in the . case." No claim is made that the Regional Director has ever "satisfied " himself, or determined, that Respondent has complied with the terms of the agreement . On the contrary, the issuance of the complaint clearly indicates that he has determined Respondent's noncompliance with the terms of that agreement. In any event , it is now a well-established policy of the Board , approved by the courts,8 to go behind a settlement agreement which has been breached by subsequent unfair labor practices of a similar nature, and to consider evidence of conduct both before and after the settlement agreement . For the foregoing reasons I adhere to my previous rulings denying Respondent 's motions to dismiss the proceeding because of the execution of the aforementioned settlement agreement. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of Respondent 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. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondent is not entitled to a dismissal of this proceeding because of the execution of the settlement agreement of February 27, 1958. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy , and to remove , the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. 0 American Furniture Co. Inc., 11.8 NLRB 1139; Union Furniture Co. Inc., 118 NLRB 1148; Mid-South Manufacturing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 230. z Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB 947; Richards Container Corporation, 114 NLRB 1435. 8 The Wallace Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 323 U.S. 248, 253-255; Canyon Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 128 F. 2d 953, 956 (C.A. '8) ; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (Clark Bros. Transfer Co.), 116 NLRB 1891. PACIFIC AMERICAN FISHERIES, INC. 9 Respondent's repeated unlawful activities go to the very heart of the Act and indicate a purpose to defeat self-organization of its employees . I am convinced that the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that the danger of their com- mission in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Board's order is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the inter- dependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Pacific American Fisheries, Inc. and George Brighton Alaska Fishermen's Union Local Industrial No. 1821 , AFL-CIO and George Brighton. Cases Nos. 19-CA-1635 and 19-CB-539. Judy 9, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On March 17, 1959, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices 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 Respondent Company, the Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the.Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations with the modifications indicated in The Remedy and the Order. THE REMEDY Having found, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent Company violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) and Respondent Union violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. So that such policies may be fully effectuated, our remedy differs in various particulars from that recommended by the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we shall order that the Respondent Company offer George Brighton employment as second engineer on the vessel Salmo 124 NLRB No. 5.