Local 294, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

LOCAL 294, INTL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1023 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent Company described in section I, above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and lend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will. recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and -take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondents have'violated the Act by maintaining in effect and enforcing an illegal union-security provision in their contract. The only remedy which ,the General Counsel is seeking in connection with this phase of the case is an order requiring the parties to cease giving effect to, and to eliminate, the illegal union-security provision . I agree that, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, such a remedy will be sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the , entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Animated Displays Company, the Respondent Company herein , is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Carpenters' District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, the Respondent Union herein , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act. - 3. By maintaining in effect and enforcing in their contract a union -security pro. vision not authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, the Respondent Company has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and the Respondent Union has violated Section 8 (b) (I) (A) and (2) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce .within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondents Union and Company have not, as alleged in the complaint, violated the Act in connection with the layoff of Dewayne C. Johns on January 11, 1961. (Recommendation omitted from publication.] Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Independent [Valletta Motor Trucking Co., Inc.] and George Monty. Case No. 3-CB- 505. June 28, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On October 19, 1961, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions. to the Intermediate Report. 137 NLRB No. 112. 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner for the reasons noted below. Monty, the Charging Party, was employed on the Employer's Al- bany to Boston route, and, from January 1960 on, was considered by the Employer to have first preference for extra runs on this route. Sometime in the fall of 1960, Monty's priority for extra driving as- signments was reduced and two other drivers, union members like Monty, who had been receiving extra runs after him, were given job assignments to which Monty was entitled. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the loss of Monty's top priority for extra assign- ments was caused by Smith, the Respondent's business agent, and Covey, the Respondent's steward on the Employer's Albany-Boston run, who had been delegated the ministerial work of phoning the extra drivers as to their availability for runs.' Despite efforts by one of the Employer's officials, Nicholas Valletta, to see that Monty obtained assignments to runs to which he was entitled under the Em- ployer's priority system, the Union, acting through Covey, con- tinued to frustrate the Employer's aim by assigning other drivers, thereby forcing Monty to seek employment elsewhere. Although the business agent stated to Covey and Monty that he wished to keep the extra driving jobs on Valletta's Albany to Boston run open for unemployed union members, we find that this was a pre- text for discrimination against Monty either because he was consid- ered a troublemaker by some of the regular drivers or because the Union wished to substitute its own method of job assignments for that which the Employer preferred. We conclude that the Union's action in forcing the Company to deny employment to Monty violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A).' ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as its Order with the following changes : 1. Paragraph 2 (e) of the Recommended Order shall be modified to read : Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 1 We agree with the 'Trial Examiner that, although Covey acted at times both as an agent of the Employer and of the Union, his conduct in bypassing Monty was contrary to the Employer 's instructions and pursuant to those of Smith , the Union's business agent 'Shear's Pharmacy, Inc, 137 NLRB 451; Brunswick Corporation, 135 NLRB 574; and Verve Records, Inc, 127 NLRB 1045 LOCAL 294, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1025 2. The notice shall be modified so that the words "A Decision and Order" are substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." 3 3. The following is to be inserted in the notice, below the sentence beginning "This notice must remain posted ..." : Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Re- gional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone Number, T1. 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. 3In 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 " INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER The complaint herein alleges that the Union has violated Section 8 (b) (1),(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 73 Stat. 519 , by attempting to cause and causing Valletta to discriminate against Monty by insisting that Valletta cease giving work to Monty because assignments to him were not in accord with the Union's share-the-work plan. The answer denies the allegations of unfair labor practices and alleges as separate defenses that Steward Covey acted as agent of Valletta, not of the Union, if he committed any of the acts alleged ; and that treat- ment of Monty was nondiscriminatory and in accordince with a previously arranged and nondiscriminatory system of work assignments. A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan at Albany, New York, on July 13 and August 22, 1961. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Union was heard in oral argument . Pursuant to leave given to all parties , a brief was thereafter filed by the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) 1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was admitted and I find that Valletta, a New York corporation with principal office in Vestal, New York, and trucking terminals in Albany, New York, and else- where in that and other States, is engaged in the general trucking business ; that during 1960 it derived a gross income of more than $50,000, entirely from the transportation of freight , goods, and material directly between the various States of the United States; and that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. It was admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The first separate defense is embraced in the Union's denial that it caused the Company to discriminate since, to the extent that he relies on acts by Covey, the General Counsel must show that Covey was the Union 's agent. The second separate defense was offered , at later explained by counsel for the Union, in anticipation of proof by the General Counsel of a union share-the -work or rotation plan. But there is no proof of any such plan beyond what was here done ; and if the Union caused the Company to withhold work from Monty and thereby to discriminate against him, the presence of a rotation plan need not be shown by the General Counsel and was not shown, and the anticipatory defense, as was agreed , need not be considered. Valletta employs four regular drivers, all members of the Union , at its Albany terminal or break or transfer point for the Albany-Boston run. Beginning in December 1959, Monty was employed as an extra, taking the place of an absent regular driver or driving an extra truck when needed . In January 1960, Covey, himself one of the four regular drivers, the steward at Albany, and the one who, 649856-63-vol. 137-66 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assigned extra runs, introduced Monty to Frank Valletta , the Company's secretary, as the extra driver who "has been covering the runs." For a few months Covey called Monty at home as needed; but he then told Monty to be on deck to cover the run rather than wait to be called. Whether, using the various terms employed by Monty , he was the "extra driver," ,the "regular extra driver," or the "only extra driver" on the Albany-Boston run, the fact is that he had been designated to be and was assigned to the first available extra run. There is no direct testimony of a statement allegedly made by Frank Valletta to the effect that Monty was to be the one and only extra man on that run and that he wanted no other extra drivers driving his trucks. But as we shall see, Nicholas Valletta, the Company's vice president and Frank's brother, apparently had knowl- edge of such a statement, or believed that Frank had made it , and expressed his determination to back it up. Two other extra drivers, Russell and Whinnery, worked for Valletta in Albany, pulling extra trips "in back of" Monty; i.e., Monty took the first available extra truck and one of the other two took the second when more than one extra man was needed. This continued until the fall of 1960, when Whinnery and Russell started to go out on runs ahead of Monty. Whereas the latter had previously gone on 1 to 5 trips per week (he totaled approximately 80 trips in 1960), he averaged less than 1 per week .in December and little more in November, Whinnery and Russell getting the runs ahead of him. Monty finally stopped going to the terminal in January 1961. These facts stand out, whatever few other runs there were or calls by the Union for Monty to take a run elsewhere. Nor is the situation altered by the fact that Russell or other drivers had occasionally pulled trips for Valletta before Monty came -on the scene. Whatever the earlier history, Monty had been assigned priority over other extra drivers by this Employer, and the issue is whether the Union unlawfully caused the Employer to discriminate against him by withholding assignments. (We have noted that the case was tried without reference to a share-the-work plan. Nor is there evidence of a lawful employer-union agreement which might support any such plan or other preferential hiring criteria ) While as counsel for the Union brought out, it was Covey not Frank or Nicholas Valletta who told Russell that he was in back of Monty on assignments, Covey was at that point repeating the Vallettas' instructions; and it was also counsel for the Union who brought out that it was 'Covey's duty to make assignments for the Company; so that Covey's recognition of Monty's priority was the Vallettas'. I credit Monty's testimony. He did not claim to be a regular driver , and with ,one unspecified exception received no union benefits which are not generally given to extra drivers. Except for such minor variance as whether another extra driver said or merely may have said that he had elsewhere received holiday and vacation pay, Monty stood up under rigorous cross-examination . Whatever involvements -were injected concerning union benefits and Monty's very occasional employment elsewhere (apparently at Covey's suggestion or request ), Monty was the "regular extra driver" for the Company and was available as such until the Union caused a change. About the end of 1960 Nicholas Valletta told Covey to give Monty assignments ahead of Russell and Whinnery, and gave Covey 2 weeks to straighten out Monty's complaints in this respect, telling Covey that he had to back up what his brother Frank had said . When Monty continued thereafter to complain , Valletta warned Covey that he would eliminate a run out of Albany. The Company's attitude with respect to Monty was thus again made clear so that if, as a result of further discus- sions with union representatives , the Company did not continue to insist on Monty's preference in employment, the Union's unlawful causation was quite as clear. (It stands uncontradicted that at the union office its business agent , Smith, Covey, and Whinnery in turn attempted to persuade Nicholas Valletta that Monty was a trouble- maker and no good.) Valletta's warning to Covey prompted Smith to call , and Valletta now told Smith that Frank Valletta had promised the extra work to Monty. Nicholas then ap- parently wrote a note to Covey and spoke to him on the telephone. Valletta was an honest witness, but he was easily led and his recollection was uncertain. Just -what he told Covey can be reconstructed only with difficulty as he gave several versions. He first told us that he had directed Covey to give Monty extra work, then -immediately restated it as having told Covey to give Monty the extra work. It was obvious that the distinction escaped Valletta as he testified . He later testified that all of the extra work could not be given to Monty; accepting counsel's characteriza- tion, he testified that he told Covey to give him "some" extra work. Valletta finally had it that he told Covey to give Monty some of the extra work "to keep him going"; but Monty "was looking to become a regular man." LOCAL 294, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1027 I find that Nicholas Valletta did not tell Covey to give Monty all of the extra work although he did tell Covey that Monty told him that Frank Valletta had prom- ised Monty all of the extra work. In fact it was important to have several extra men available in case of additional need. But that preference was to be given to -Monty was clear and clearly stated to Covey, as to Smith. Nicholas Valletta recog- nized and supported Monty's desire to become a regular man. In short, Nicholas Valletta told Covey and, as the "trouble" continued with other drivers going out, he told Smith and Covey again that Monty was to be given more assignments; he was to get extra work ahead of the other extra drivers. This was not done to the Company's satisfaction or according to Frank Valletta's alleged promise which Nicholas Valletta tried to back up. The limitation on such assignments and the role which Covey and Smith played in such limitation has been reviewed. As for Nicholas Valletta's statement to Smith about running trucks straight through Albany, being made to "bargain out" a union grievance, the fact that the Company did run a truck straight through and then agreed not to, represented its previously indicated wishes concerning more assignments to Monty. It is unnecessary to create a major industry of analysis of all of Covey's testimony. It would be a simple matter to show as quite unworthy of credence his story of an alleged arrangement by which another company, Maishn, made its terminal avail- able as a transfer point for Valletta without rent for a nonexistent "privilege" of calling on Valletta's drivers; for by this arrangement, according to Covey, Valletta and Maislin merely exchanged the right to use each others' extra drivers with an apparent obligation to give preference to those who had theretofore been employed as extra drivers by the other! Thereafter Covey testified that it had not been decided in the arrangement whether one company's men would be used before the other's. None of this has a direct bearing on the issue of Monty's priority and the subsequent change effected by the Union. Cutting through the verbiage, explanations, and arguments, we have noted Nicholas Valletta's repeated calls or demands to Covey and Smith for preference to Monty and his statement of support for a promise which his brother had allegedly made. Covey's right to select extra drivers for the Com- pany was limited by the specific instructions given to him by Nicholas Valletta. If the latter did not pound the table or hold out to his own bitter end, his choice was clear and repeated, even to the extent of a temporary change in scheduling a run. Monty's priority status was definite and was recognized in practice until the fall of 1960. As counsel for the Union argued, Covey's authority to call Monty came from the Company, not from the Union. He was not merely authorized, he was several times directed to call Monty. From the Union and in Covey's capacity as union repre- sentative stemmed the refusals and the loss of his preference over the other extra drivers. The change in Covey's attitude toward Monty despite the Company's posi- tion, and Smith's decision to keep the job open for other men were effectuated by the decrease in assignments to Monty while more frequent assignments were given to other extra drivers. The Union thus caused the Company to discriminate as alleged. The testimony that Monty had had an accident and that Covey so reminded Nicholas Valletta when the latter objected to the employment of Russell because he had had an accident; that the work had slowed down and that Monty was un- reasonable in his requests for assignments or otherwise-none of it has been over- looked. It serves but to becloud the issue if, as found, the Union's acts unlawfully caused the Company to deny him assignments. The testimony concerning the com- plaint made by Warm, one of the regular drivers, against Monty further indicates the Union's interest and activity in the matter of assignments. However such activity may be justified, it cannot be denied. Covey and the Union were not insulated against these matters; on the contrary, the Union and Covey, its steward and representative who transmitted grievances to it, actively involved themselves. If Monty irritated other drivers, the Union's activity was nonetheless violative. While the answer admits that Covey was the steward and the Union's agent, and counsel for the Union admitted that Covey was "for certain purposes" acting for the Union, the defense is offered that with respect to his dealings with Monty, as in certain other matters, he was acting for the Company only. Although Covey made extra assignments as representative of the Company in charge of the Albany break point, he was himself a rank-and-file employee.' Whatever knowledge he had of the Vallettas' desire that Monty be given priority in assignments, he had the infor- 'New York State Employers Association, Inc and Red Star Express Lines of Auburn, Inc, 93 NLRB 127, 129; Redwing Carriers, Inc, 125 NLRB 322, 326 1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mation also as representative of 294, a post to which he had been elected by the regular drivers. As distinguished from his acts and the performance of his duties for the Company, Covey himself as company representative could not be separated from Covey as union representative with respect to what he knew. On this matter of Covey's knowledge, reliance is not placed on a statement not thereafter supported which was made to him by Kurkowski, steward at Valletta's Binghamton terminal, that Frank Valletta had told him to tell Covey that Monty was to be "the one and only man on the Albany run." It is not clear the Kurkowski was in fact a repre- sentative or agent of the Company to communicate this to Covey; or that this could be regarded as an admission by the Respondent Union, since Kurkowski was a steward for another local. Clearly Covey performed certain functions as company employee and representa- tive; he so acted in making assignments and in other connections But he also was a union representative; not only that, but he permitted his union interest to impinge on and to control his assignments to extra drivers When, in the first half of December 1960, Monty complained to Covey that he was getting fewer assignments while more were going to other extra men, Covey replied that he "might not even be steward," and added that Smith, the union business agent, had taken over the job. The question was thus, what was the steward qua steward, or the business agent, now functioning as steward, doing and going to do about the assignments? The Union's part in this was underscored as Covey advised Monty to go to the Union's office to get it straightened out; and the Union, as we shall now see, under- took to decide the issue. Covey was here speaking as steward and union rep- resentative, and the job which he referred to as taken over by the Union's business agent was his own union job and authority, not any company job. As the union business agent was acting as the Union's representative when he acted as steward, so had Covey. Similarly, when Warm complained to Covey concerning two runs which Monty allegedly "stole" from him, Covey was ill and referred Warm to the Union. Assignments and runs were union business, and when Covey undertook to satisfy the Union's grievances and protests, noted supra, against Monty, he acted as union representative. Nor was Covey acting as company representative when he told Val- letta that although the latter was boss, the men were entitled to say with whom they wanted to work. With respect to Covey's election as steward, Valletta was again led to agree on the stand that the men who elected Covey steward were electing a manager. This is fanciful Covey's authority on behalf of the Company stemmed from the Company, and did not depend on the other drivers. In some capacities, Covey acted for the Company; in some, for the Union; and in some, for both.2 Shortly thereafter Covey, specifically as steward appeared with Monty at a con- ference at the union hall, here still as a union representative, I find. Covey's plea on Monty's behalf at that time was likewise made in that capacity; this was an intraunion conference, with the union president referring to intraunion discipline- Smith's explanation to Covey, at the union office and in the presence of Monty and the Union's president, for keeping the job open for men out of work rather than recognizing Monty's prior right constituted a decision by the superior union representative to Covey as steward which Covey as company representative did not ignore. Here clearly was control exercised by 294, acting particularly through Covey and Smith, over the Company's employment, to Monty's disadvantage, until he stopped going to the terminal in January, as noted. There is no issue but that such control encourages union membership. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the union set forth in section ?T, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in section 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. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union has engaged in and is eng aging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend that ;, curse and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. 2United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Loral ±`517, f11 'J, (Gil Wyner Construction Company ), 112 NLRB 714, 71 G, 721 , United States Steel Coipenat,on (Ame)ican Bridge Division ), 122 NLRB 1324, 1325 LOCAL 294, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1029 It has been found that the Union, by attempting to cause and causing Valletta to discriminate against Monty by insisting that it cease giving extra work to him, restrained and coerced employees and caused the Employer to discriminate in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2 ) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Union cease and desist therefrom . I shall further recommend that the Union make Monty whole for loss of pay sustained by reason of the discriminatory action aforementioned, computation to be made in the customary manner.3 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. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Independent, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By causing and attempting to cause Valletta to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, Albany, New York, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Valletta to discriminate against any employee by denial of work assignments. (b) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause Valletta to discriminate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of .the Act (a) Make Monty whole for the loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Valletta, in writing, that it withdraws its objections to priority em- ployment of Monty as an extra driver. (c) Post at its office in Albany, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Union's representa- tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for v0 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Third Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix," for posting by Valletta at its Albany, New York, terminal or place of business. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Union's representative, be forthwith returned to said Regional Director for such posting. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 3 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N L R B., 311 U S 7; F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. 1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS, AND NONMEMBERS Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor-Management Re- lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Valletta Motor Trucking Co, Inc., to discriminate against any employee by denial of work assignments. WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause Valletta Motor Trucking Co., Inc., to discriminate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make George Monty whole for the loss of pay suffered by him as the result of the discrimination against him. LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL -BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER- ICA, INDEPENDENT, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Bedford-Nugent Corp. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Help- ers, Local Union 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 25-CA-1467. June 28, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On April 6, 1962, 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs i support thereof. The Board I has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record' in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.' ' 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 2 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including the exceptions and briefs , in our opinion adequately presents the issues and the positions. of the parties 137 NLRB No. 110.