Fred Jones Mfg., Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fred Jones Manufacturing Company and Internation- al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases 16-CA-7604 and 16-RC-7591 October 23, 1978 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On June 29, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Da- vid G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. In relevant part, the Administrative Law Judge found "convincing" the testimony of employees Moorman and Bolton regarding questions asked them by Supervisor Criswell shortly before the elec- tion. In this regard, the Administrative Law Judge found that Moorman testified that, in early October,' Criswell once approached him to inquire if known union involvement meant discontent, and that Bol- ton testified that, in mid-October, Criswell ap- proached his work station to inquire why he went with a union since pay and benefits were adequate without it. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forn.a the Adminis- trative Law Judge's recommendation that the outstanding objections to the election be overruled and that an appropriate certification of results issue. The election. held on November 3. 1977. was conducted pursuant to a Stip- ulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The talk was: 117 for the Charging Part) Petitioner. 54 for the International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers. Local Lodge 850. AFL (IO, Intersenor in this proceeding, and 336 against the participating labor organizations I here were also 42 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results 2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the evidence pre- sented with regard to changes in employee Moorman's work assignments following the election is insufficient to establish a discriminatory mol ie itI violation of Sec. 8(a1(3) and (I) of the Act We note. however, that the Administrative Law Judge. in stating that employees Moorman. Bolton. and Kieling shared in roughly equal rotation the chemical cleaning lob assign- ment. failed to find, as the record shows. that employees Graham and Willis also were similarly rotated. This additional fact casts further doubt on the allegation that Moorman was discriminated against in being .slgined this du dates are y.977 I All dates are 1977. In finding that Criswell's remarks were not "truly" intimidating, the Administrative Law Judge substi- tuted his own view of what the law should be for applicable Board precedent, thereby committing er- ror. It is the duty of an Administrative Law Judge to follow and apply established Board precedent, re- gardless of his personal views.4 The uniform and or- derly administration of a national act, such as the National Labor Relations Act, necessitates this ap- proach. Were we to acquiesce in the desire of an Ad- ministrative Law Judge to depart from those estab- lished Board positions with which he does not concur, the results, obviously, would be nothing short of chaotic. Furthermore, the Administrative Law Judge's re- statement of Moorman's and Bolton's testimony is at best an incomplete reflection of the record. While the Administrative Law Judge found that Moorman tes- tified that Criswell once inquired if known union in- volvement meant discontent. Moorman's testimony clearly reveals that Criswell did not seek to engage Moorman merely in an academic discussion. The record shows that Moorman testified as follows: Well, [Criswell] approached me and just asked me how I was doing and said that he had intend- ed to ask me about my Union involvement for some time and hadn't gotten around to it until just then. I remember him saying that my obvious Union involvement was obviously an expression of some discontent with the company and asked me why I hadn't confronted him with it. I told him that I didn't have any quarrel with my job as such, but I was campaigning for better wages, better benefits, and the like. He proceeded-we proceeded to talk on the pros and cons of the Union .... Likewise, the Administrative Law Judge, in find- ing that Bolton testified that Criswell once asked him why he went with a union since pay and benefits were adequate without it, again confused the testi- mony. The record does not show that Criswell condi- tioned his inquiry, for Bolton testified that Criswell "asked me how I was getting along and everything and he come on and asked me why I wanted a Union ... . My reply was I wanted higher pay, better ben- efits, and my political beliefs were with the Union." Thus it is clear that Criswell in these two instances, knowing that the employees involved sought union representation, decided to interrogate them regarding the reasons for their attitudes. We find such conduct SSc¢ ord ('tmpani (( hi.,ugo Stamping Planrt. 230 NLRB 716. fn 12 11977): Ia Breef PaAer., Ina. 144 NLRB 615. 616 11963). Ins.urunce A.gcllt Inerlitiornaul L:nion. 4 . ( 10 (The Prudential Insurance (ormpan ,4.t cir.,,a. 119 NI RB 768. 773 (1957} 54 FRED JONES MANUFACTURING COMPANY by its very nature, irrespective of the character of the employees who were questioned, to be interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ITT Auto- motive Electrical Products Division, 231 NLRB 878 (1977). In addition, we also find, as alleged by the General Counsel, that Criswell's inquiry regarding the source of Moorman's perceived discontent with the Respondent amounted to a solicitation of griev- ances carrying with it an implied promise to rectify employee complaints and is violative of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. Federal Yeast Corporation, 226 NLRB 1046, 1054 (1976); Dallas Ceramic Company, 219 NLRB 582, 586 (1975). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in this case, we make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The above-named unions are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their rea- sons for supporting unions and by soliciting griev- ances with the implied promise of benefit. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Except as specifically provided herein, Respon- dent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we find it is necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found herein, and from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in any like or related man- ner. We shall order that the usual notice be posted. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Fred Jones Manufacturing Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees regarding their union sympathies. (b) Soliciting from its employees grievances un- derlying their union activities, to discourage their in- terest in the above-named Union or any other labor organization. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employ- ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ihe IAM's objections be overruled in their entirety and the results of the election conducted by the Board on November 3, 1977, be certified. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots have not been cast for either International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or In- ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 850, AFL-CIO, and that nei- ther of said labor organizations is the exclusive repre- sentative of all the employees, in the unit herein in- volved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words In the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 55 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives all employees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or support unions To bargain as a group through a representa- tive they choose To refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL NOT question our employees about their reasons for wanting a union to represent them. WE WILL NOT solicit from our employees their grievances underlying their union activities, in order to discourage their interest in any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. FRED JONES MANUFACTURING COMPANY DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: This consolidated matter was heard at Oklahoma City, Oklaho- ma, on March 23 and 24, 1978, based on a complaint alleg- ing that Fred Jones Manufacturing Company, the Em- ployer in Case 16-RC-7591 and called Respondent herein as to Case 16-CA-7604, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily reassigning James Moorman to more onerous job tasks because he joined or assisted Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the Peti- tioner and Charging Party in these cases and called UAW herein, or engaged in other concerted protected activities, while variously interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees through solicitation of grievances, interrogation, and threats, and based further on an Acting Regional Director's report on objections, finding that certain timely filed objections of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 850, AFL-CIO, In- tervenor in Case 16-RC-7591 and called IAM herein, rela- tive to a secret ballot election conducted November 3, 1977, in which a majority of valid votes were cast against the UAW and IAM as participating labor organizations, raised substantial and material factual issues most appro- priately resolved by hearing. The objections so referred read: 5. Supervisors coerced and intimidated employees by saying that if they voted for the Union there would be a loss of benefits. This is tainted statements to the employees as to their rights under the law. * * 9. The Company showed a movie regarding the strike at Halliburton, Duncan, Oklahoma. This was a very emotional film. The Union never saw the film and does not have a way of communicating about it, therefore, this is one-sided, discriminatory, unfair and coercive. 10. The Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees from exercising their rights to receive the handbills and also the Company restrained and coerced the employees to throw their Union handbills into the trash can. Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, and consideration of post-hearing briefs, I make the fol- lowing: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations With Respect to Objections Issues raised by the complaint relate to Respondent's engine remanufacturing department, an operation of near- ly 300 employees managed by W. R. Webb.l Within that function, Assistant Foreman Jimmy Criswell supervises 75 persons in identifiable areas of receiving, disassembly, chemical cleaning, and sorting and reclaim. An election campaign featuring the two named unions commenced around early fall 1977. James Moorman and Tommy Bol- ton served openly as UAW supporters, while Robert Walk- er did the same for IAM. Moorman was hired in March 1977, and by June 2 2 had advanced to a wage grade four position as parts reclaimer. His duties then were sorting and inspection of camshafts, crankshafts, bolts, and other automotive parts, performed mostly while sitting. At the start of work on Friday, November 4, leadman David Standfell, implementing directions of Criswell that assis- tance was needed in the chemical cleaning area, assigned Moorman to this for the day. Moorman, who harbored an aversion to the caustic, disagreeable work of that area, told Standfell he was satisfied to accept the assignment if it was merely part of a rotation taken from among persons regu- larly in reclaim. On Monday, November 7, Moorman re- ceived the same instructions, protested the unfairness of nonrotation, but performed further chemical cleaning du- ties for that day when Criswell joined in to insist it be done. November 8 was the effective date of a disassembly employee's transfer to night shift, resulting in assignment of Moorman to the vacated task of pulling cams from used engines. When this assignment was attemptedly repeated Respondent is engaged at Oklahoma City. Oklahoma. in rebuilding au- tomobile parts and motors. annually selling and shipping goods and mate- rials valued in excess of $50.000 to points outside Oklahoma. I find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the UAW and IAM are each labor organizations within the mean- ing of Sec. 2(5). All dates and named months hereafter are in 1977, unless shown other- wise. 56 FRED JONES MANUFACTURING COMPANY next day, Moorman protested it had troubled his back. The matter was taken to Webb, who directed that Criswell place Moorman on some job not aggravating in this man- ner. He was assigned to hammer out misshapen oil pans for the day, then for a time immediately following was re- stored to his former job under Standfell's caution that he had no guarantee of continuation. By early December, Moorman had been given revised tasks on a regular basis, which involved standing work on oil pans, pushrods, rock- er arms, and 80-plus pound intake manifolds. Pertaining to this point, Criswell produced crude documentation show- ing details of when persons were temporarily reassigned to chemical cleaning for a day's work over the period Novem- ber 2-December 2. He testified to doing this because Moorman complained early in the month, and discontin- ued it when, by early December, no complaints were still pressed. This showed a roughly equal rotation between Terry Kieling, Bolton, and Moorman, 3 with Moorman's date of assignments beyond November 7 being November 15, 22, and 30. As background to this, Moorman testified that in early October, Criswell once approached to inquire if known union involvement meant discontent. This opening led to mutual discussion of opposing views. Moorman also re- called originating a private talk with Respondent's Presi- dent Chris Speligene in late October, during which incon- clusive discussion of unionism led to the latter stating Moorman's imminent performance review might not be fa- vorable because of the ideological position he had taken. Further, Bolton testified that in mid-October, Criswell ap- proached his work station to inquire why he went with a union since pay and benefits were adequate without it. Criswell denies the Bolton discussion, while tacitly admit- ting the essence of Moorman's version as emanating from his "curioslity]." Several sharp disputes of fact first require resolution. The simplest relates to Moorman's audience with Speli- gene, for the latter's well-presented denial of any untoward implication is readily credited. On the other hand, Moor- man and Bolton are convincing in their recollection of being questioned by Criswell shortly before the election. But the more basic issue is whether unsolicited talk of this type, directed at prominent adherents and inquisitive only as a point of departure to arguing the merits of unionism, overreaches doctrinal prohibition against solicitation and interrogation as framed by complaint paragraphs 7(a) and (b).4 Even given its fullest thrust as described by Moorman and Bolton, what emerges is only isolated remarks directed at 2 of the 600 employees involved. The notion of rem- edying patently isolated verbalisms is grounded in long- held doctrine that objective effect of what was spoken tends to rattle employees so much they contract fear for their 3 This sheet was assertedly reconstructed from memory and inquiry for its first 4 workdays, and maintained currently for the balance of its listings. Criswell's testimony that Billy Graham was assigned chemical cleaning on November 4 is rejected as erroneous. because Walker. regularly employed there, convincingly corroborated Moorman's recall of first being assigned to that area the day following the Board-conducted election. 4 My credibility resolution above, based on strong grounds of demeanor and probability, leaves par. 7(c) without merit. very job, or that job-related disadvantage will befall them from having exercised, or persisting in exercise of, Section 7 rights. It would be idle to tabulate the various cases in which this doctrine was invoked (or the few in which it was not) or the many reviews by United States courts of ap- peals which either agreed with particular case justification or found it unwarranted. Rather, it is better to examine or rethink the fundamental rationale in terms of whether too mechanistic an approach is typically taken by the Board. While compassionate invocation of such doctrine may be administratively convenient, it does not necessarily square with realities of domestic employment mores. Standing alone, "expertise" is a mere label, one that must find sup- port in living realism. Furthermore, the increasingly mo- bile, sophisticated, and individualistic nature of American workers, by cross-section, makes suspect any precept that is fundamentally patronizing or insulting to the intelligence of a reasonably prudent present-day employee. What is needed is to examine more closely the actual surrounding circumstances of each case, with a mind to intelligently assess whether, objectively speaking, a particular verbal in- trusion warrants remedy (or, because conceptually the two notions can reach a convergence, whether the evidentiary facts of what was uttered is even threatening within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)). In this case, Moorman's be- havior is quite revealing. Not only did he field Criswell's remarks with total aplomb. make no protest or display any immediate or consequential concern, but infact soon there- after reintroduced the supposedly disconcerting subject into his life by deliberate and active debate with Respon- dent's president! There is a message in this sequence--one that should not be lost on those charged with administra- tive subject matter expertise, or, ultimately, on the process of judicial review, when such is undertaken. It is that the episode had not "reasonably" had a resultant intimidatory effect, because clearly, under all the facts it would be quite unreasonable (used synonymously with naive) to so con- clude. The foregoing explication deals only with the tenor of the discussion. Concerning substance, a solicitation of grievances has not been shown because expressly or by implication this notion cannot be found in what Criswell said. General Counsel has here unavailingly cited McMul- len Corporation, d/b/a Briarwood Hilton, 222 NLRB 986 (1976), a case highly distinguishable on its facts. Cf. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 216 NLRB 11 (1975). The Bolton incident is even more innocuous, amounting to no more than conversational prelude to the expression of permitted views. The composite conduct fails of legal sig- nificance, and I decline to find an independent 8(a)(1) vio- lation because of such utterances. The assignments befalling Moorman during November are defended largely on grounds that he had frequently before sought, through the existing postings and bid pro- cess, other positions equally arduous and difficult to those complained of. I find Criswell's explanation of how and when Moorman was chosen for introduction to chemical cleaning to be extremely lame. The bare assertion is that for months prior to November 4, extra needs of the chemi- cal cleaning process were fulfilled voluntarily, until sud- denly. on the day following the election, volunteers dried up and Moorman not only was introduced to the process, 57 DECISIONS OF NA'IIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD but on the next workday became the first person, by Walker's credible recall, to work consecutively at fill-in. The countervailing thought is that great flexibility obtains throughout the several functions under Criswell's direction, no comparable claim was made for the similarly "undesir- abl[y]" situated Walker, and the only real disagreeableness of the chemical cleaning area is potential for acid burn and closeness to pungency. Most importantly, Moorman had randomly sought other heavy and demanding work with the objective of bettering his pay rate. The significance of having bid on jobs is not that an employee might thereafter complain of a uniquely onerous assignment, but that Re- spondent's agents would have a reduced perception of what, to the employee, would seem onerous and therefore ripe for punitive assignment.5 Stated otherwise, but with emphasis on the "logical extreme" vein of reasoning, a dis- criminating employer is not likely to randomly shuffle an employee into a new task configuration or work environ- ment unless it has reason to covertly believe this will cause distress. As to what Moorman was assigned on November 4 and early the following week, the pungency aspect of chemical cleaning work is universally repugnant, however the ardousness associated with tasks during that period is not necessarily so vis-a-vis Moorman and the objective awareness of supervision. While far from dispositive, this observation tends to undercut the theory that conscious dynamics were at work for the purpose of deliberately causing Moorman undue fatigue, exasperable despair, and ignominy of being cast to the industrial pits. Since a gener- al predilection to seek heavy jobs is shown, the mere fact that Respondent shunted him involuntarily to some with- out a grade change being involved does not show startling or noteworthy singling out. Moreover, Criswell testified without contradiction that a goal of increasing female em- ployment in the plant had led to Moorman's old lighter job of sorting being allocated to such persons. On balance, a case surrounded by definite suspicion is shown, but not one that marshals sufficient probative evidence from the record taken as a whole to believe that retaliatory discrimi- nation in job content was visited on Moorman because he actively aligned with a contending union. This conclusion is further influenced by absence of evidence showing union animus on the part of Respondent's agents. The objections heard deal solely with matters occurring during the several days preceding election. In this period all parties intensified final campaigning up to and includ- ing the preshift period of November 3. On October 31 and November 1, a structured series of employee meetings were conducted by Respondent, based on groupings of approxi- mately 30 that were addressed by Speligene. 6 Speligene propogandized against the Union, and with introductory comment ran a short film showing a picket line commotion as it had occurred recently at another Oklahoma employer. Several IAM witnesses testified that he prefaced this show- I credit the denial of highly convincing testimony from Standfell, to the effect that he never assured Moorman any of the jobs for which bid (includ- ing starter test, assembly, and stock handler) were other than heavy in na- ture. Walker, contradicting management officials on the point, credibly testi- fied that Criswell told him attendance was mandatory. In view of the point in time the meetings occurred it is immaterial whether this is true. ing by stating it would depict what would happen at the plant were unionization to succeed. Speligene denied this claim, and I credit his recollection of saying only that he wanted employees to see a film and commenting at its con- clusion that, "strange[ly] these are the same people who were working side by side as fellow employees a few weeks earlier." He is convincingly corroborated in this regard as to the essence of any remark by believable testimony of Gerald Privette. No other evidence concerning circum- stances of this projection or the content of the film itself warrants any basis to hold that it affected results of the election. During the morning of November 2, Speligene assem- bled all plant employees at the receiving area as ordinarily done for purposes of monthly safety discussion. This meet- ing, however. was to be devoted to a speech addressing the following day's representation election. Further context is in terms of a poster prominently placed around the plant during the prior 2 weeks which had the following conclud- ing passage: We are not saying that you are going to lose what you already have but just want you to know what the law says. We have a perfect right to demand concessions from the union and one of the demands could be that wages and fringes be brought more in line with area levels which may be lower than what you now have. On this critical objection point, IAM witnesses, particu- larly Walker, Thomas McMahon, and Helen Gilliland, tes- tified that Speligene stated should a union win certifica- tion, negotiations would begin from "zero" or from "scratch." Gilliland illustrated her recollection of this with testimony to the effect that Speligene displayed a blank piece of paper and emphasized that matters would "go from there." Several supervisory and nonsupervisory em- ployees impressively denied hearing such remarks but, more significantly, Speligene testified in a highly credible manner that he had alluded to the Ludwig case 7 by empha- sizing the "horse trading" character of union negotiations, and that all wages and benefits in effect for employees became bargainable subjects at the onset of initial union dealings. His prepared speech is in evidence, and I am sat- isfied it was departed from only in minor regard and for extemporaneous emphasis. Most importantly, I discredit testimony from suggestible or inattentive listeners who claimed Speligene warned of starting negotiations from scratch at a zero base. My ultimate conclusion is that what he spoke to the assemblage was well within the permitted bounds of Ludwig. Cf. Fidelity Telephone Company, 236 NLRB No. 26 (1978). A final aspect of the objections deals with particular events the mornings of November 2 and 3, when devotees of both unions, as well as an employee committee opposed to either, congregated raucously outside the plant entrance in a vigorous handbilling campaign. On these days, Speli- gene and Vice President Ernest Morris themselves hand- billed inside the plant. Inclement rainy weather on Novem- ber 2 caused most antiunion handbillers to operate inside the door in a manner causing arriving employees to be 7 udnig lMofor Corporation., 222 NLRB 635 (1976). 58 FRED JONES MANUFACTURING COMPANY funneled narrowly as handbills were offered. Additionally, antiunion employee Nancy Hazel displayed, or carried, a 5-gallon can she had labeled "union trash" in which she promoted the discarding of opposition literature. On one occasion a UAW handbiller moved inside the plant, caus- ing Hazel and her followers to ask his removal by plant security. The incident brought Morris to the scene, who permitted the UAW handbiller to remain. Testimony of Hazel and numerous other antiunion employees clearly shows the boisterous, antagonistic nature of handbilling as the election campaign climaxed. No credible evidence was advanced that any agent of Respondent interfered with the right of participating unions to handbill employees or ac- tively encouraged its immediate trashing. In this, I express- ly discredit testimony to the effect that supervision directed recipients to the trash container or vocalized such a senti- ment.8 Accordingly, I recommend that IAM Objections 5, 9, and 10 be overruled and that an appropriate certification of results issue. Further, I conclude that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) as alleged, and issue the following recommended: ORDER 9 The complaint is dismissed in its entirety. [ IAM witnesses are unpersuasive in describing how Speligene and Morris were to have provoked the discard of freshly received literature. Their deni- als are accepted as fact, a result not inconsistent with Walker's own admis- sion that he never heard Speligene "saylingl anything to the employees as they were coming through and accepting the leaflets." Contrary testimony of IAM organizer Marcus Bertone is rejected as coy. fanciful, devoid of truth in most significant regards, and utterly unworthy of further comment. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findirgs, conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes, 59