Carpenters Local No. 40, Etc.

142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organizations or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities. All our employees are free to become and remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., Employer. Dated--- ---------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act [ and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,] after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue , Houston, Texas, 77002, Telephone No. Capitol 8-0611 , Extension 296, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and its Business Agent Robert Stevenson [Stop & Shop, Inc.] and Chester Smith and George D. Burnham. Case No. 1-CB-804(1-2). June 26, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On March 8, 1963, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow 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 therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 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 en- tire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the ex- ceptions, and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent consistent herewith. 143 NLRB No. 25. CARPENTERS LOCAL NO. 40, ETC. 143 The Trial Examiner found that Respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) by refusing to issue work permits to the Charg- ing Parties and by objecting to the Employer's hiring them. He concluded that Respondents thereby caused the Employer to refuse to hire in violation of Section 8(a)(3). The facts clearly reveal that Respondents requested the Employer not to hire Burnham and Smith because they had been denied work permits. We conclude that by this conduct Respondents attempted to cause the Employer to refuse to hire Burnham and Smith in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), and that Respondents thus violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. We do not agree, however, that Respondents unlawfully caused the Employer to discriminate against them. Burnham and Smith were members of another local of the Carpenters International. They were aware that the constitution of the International prohibited a member from going to work in the jurisdiction of another local without a work permit from that local. They had every intention of adhering to that constitutional requirement. The decisive causative factor here is that neither would accept employment unless Respond- ent local first granted them work permits. Our dissenting colleague contends that the refusal of the employees to accept employment may not be considered because the employees were "coerced" by the Union's threat to subject them to charges if they went to work without a permit. But the granting or withhold- ing of work permits in the absence of an agreement or understanding with an employer requiring such permits as a condition of obtaining employment is an internal union matter which is protected by the proviso to Section 8(b) (1) (A). Contrary to the conclusion of the dissent, we believe the evidence in this case is insufficient to support a finding that there was any such understanding or agreement. The Respondents thus have no obligation under the contract or under the law to grant the permits. As the Employer's collective-bargaining contract with Respondent local contains no hiring or union-security provisions, we find that Respondents' refusal to grant work permits to Burnham and Smith did not restrain or coerce them in the statu- tory sense. Accordingly, we shall not adopt that portion of the Trial Exam- iner's recommended remedy which requires the Respondent local to reimburse Burnham and Smith for loss of earnings resulting from their refusal to accept employment without work permits. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications : 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. In the section marked "A," substitute in paragraph (1) (b) the word "Attempting" for the words "Causing or attempting." 2. In the section marked "B", delete paragraph (1) (b), and change "(c)" and "(d)" to "(b)" and "(c)," respectively. 3. In the notice, delete the words "cause or" in the second indented paragraph, and delete the third indented paragraph. MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting in part : I concur with my colleagues' conclusion that the Respondents vio- lated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A). I would find, however, that Re- spondents not only attempted to cause the Employer unlawfully to discriminate against Burnham and Smith, as my colleagues find, but that they in fact caused such discrimination. Thus, as found by the Trial Examiner, Respondents refused to issue working permits to Burnham and Smith; in their presence directed the Employer's foreman, Nevers, not to hire them; and in Nevers' presence warned them they would "be subject to charges, if they went to work without a permit." Further, Nevers acquiesced in Respondents' directive by telling Burnham and Smith, in Respondent Stevenson's presence, that "the job is here for you if you get squared away." These facts establish in my opinion that at least with respect to Burnham and Smith, the Respondents and the Employer reached an agreement or understanding to require working permits from the Re- spondent Union as a condition of employment. They further establish that Burnham and Smith were denied employment pursuant to such agreement. In this connection, the testimony concerning Burnham's and Smith's reluctance to accept employment without working per- mits does not warrant a conclusion that such decision was voluntary. Such reluctance must, in my opinion, be deemed involuntary when as here, it is expressed in the context of statements by the Employer and the Union establishing both the futility of seeking employment with- out permits and the futility of seeking the permits. Under all the circumstances, therefore, I would find in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents caused the Employer to refuse employment to Burnham and Smith in violation of Section 8(a) (3), and thereby violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2). As I regard Burnham's and Smith's "reluctance" to accept employment on the Cambridge job without working permits from the Union as essen- tially of an involuntary nature, I see no reason why it should bar the usual backpay remedy. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE The complaint in the present case was issued against Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and its busi- CARPENTERS LOCAL NO. 40, ETC. 145 ness agent, Robert Stevenson (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Respondents and, individually, as the Respondent and the Respondent Stevenson, respectively) on charges filed by Chester Smith and George D. Burnham.' The complaint alleges, but the Respondents' answer denies, that on or about November 2, 1962, the Re- spondents committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 et seq., by compelling Stop & Shop, Inc., an employer, (1) to employ only members of the Respondent or persons approved by the Respondent, and (2) to discriminate against Smith and Burnham in regard to the terms or conditions of their hire or tenure, either because they were not members of the Respondent or because the Respondent had withdrawn its consent to their con- tinued employment. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Boston, Massachusetts, on January 17, 1963, before Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow. The General Counsel and the Respondents appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. Since the hearing, I have received and considered briefs submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Stop & Shop, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation whose principal office and place of business is located in Boston, Massachusetts, has been, and is, engaged in the retail sales of groceries, household commodities, and related products. During the rep- resentative year preceding the issuance of the complaint, Stop & Shop, Inc., has sold products of a value exceeding $500,000, more than $50,000 of which by value were transported and delivered to it in Massachusetts directly from States of the United States other than the State or Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I find that Stop & Shop, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to entertain jurisdiction in the present case. H. THE RESPONDENTS The Respondent, Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and is affiliated with the Carpenters' District Council of Boston and Vicinty, AFL- CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Boston District Council. The Respondent Robert Stevenson, is business agent of the Respondent Local and its agent within the mean- ing of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES George D. Burnham and Chester Smith worked for Stop & Shop as carpenters on the construction of a new store in Woburn, Massachusetts, until October 26, 1962, when the carpentry was completed. Roland Nevers, Stop & Shop's carpenter foreman, asked them whether they wanted to work for Stop & Shop on another store in Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, and suggested that they come to see him there during the following week. Accordingly, Burnham and Smith visited the Cambridge job on Monday, October 29, and (since Nevers then told them the job was not ready), again on Thursday, November 1, when Nevers said they could come to work the following Monday morning, November 5. Unlike the Woburn job, the Cambridge job was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Boston District Council, of which the Respondent is a member and with which Stop & Shop has had a contract covering its carpenters working in that area since May 15, 1961. Burnham and Smith (and also Foreman Nevers) were members of Carpenters' Locals outside of, and unaffiliated with, the Boston District Council. Stop & Shop's contract with the Boston District Council presented no obstacle to Burnham's and Smith's employment on the Cambridge job, since the contract contains no hiring or union-security provisions. But the Carpenters' International constitution provides that, "A member who desires to work in another jurisdiction . . . shall before going to work, secure a Working Permit in writing from the Local Union 1 The charges were filed on November 7, 1962, and served upon the Respondents on the same day. The complaint was issued on December 19, 1962, and served upon the Re- spondents on December 20, 1962. 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or District Council in the jurisdiction where the work is secured", and also that the District Council may impose upon any member who violates the constitution within its jurisdiction, "such penalties as they deem the case requires," including fine and suspension or expulsion from membership (sec. 46C, 26E, 55, 56, and 57). To comply with these provisions, Burnham telephoned Robert Stevenson, the Respondent's business agent, during the evening of Thursday, November 1; told Stevenson he "had a job to go to the following Monday . . . morning"; and asked whether he had to come to the Respondent's office in Boston to get a working permit. Stevenson said that he did not know whether he would give Burnham a permit be- cause none of the Respondent's members had jobs with Nevers, but that he would see Nevers the following morning and would give Burnham a definite answer. On the next morning, Friday, November 2, Burnham and Smith met with Foreman Nevers and Business Agent Stevenson on the Cambridge job. During their conversa- tion, Stevenson refused to issue working permits to Burnham and Smith, saying that the Respondent "had an awful lot of men" out of work and that Burnham and Smith would "be subject to charges if they went to work without a permit." 2 Although Stevenson denied it in his testimony, I find, upon what I believe to be the credible testimony of Nevers, Burnham, and William McCue (another carpenter who was already working on the job), that Stevenson also told Foreman Nevers not to put Burnham and Smith to work.3 The conversation ended with Nevers' telling Burnham and Smith, in Stevenson's presence, "Boys, there it is, the job is here for you if you get squared away." Neither Burnham nor Smith made any further attempt to go to work on the Cam- bridge job. Smith did not testify, but Burnham testified that even if Nevers had been willing to hire him, he would not have taken the job without a working permit. Nevers, however, testified that, as he had told Burnham and Smith in Stevenson's presence, it was up to them to "work it out among yourselves," and that he would have put Burnham and Smith to work only if they secured permits. Conclusions In the foregoing discussion and consideration of the evidence, I have already found, contrary to Stevenson's testimony, that, as business agent of the Respondent Local, he not only refused to issue working permits to Burnham and Smith, but on this basis, told Foreman Nevers not to hire Burnham and Smith. I further find, upon the evidence, that Nevers' thereupon refused to hire the two men. These were the only factual disputes presented. There remains the question of whether, since Burnham testified that, as a member of Carpenters, he would not have worked on the Cambridge job without the working permit required by the Carpenters' constitution, it can be said that the Respondents caused Stop & Shop to discriminate against Burnham and Smith in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and thus committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. In his brief, the General Counsel states his position on this point in the following language: Counsel for the General Counsel does not contend that a violation of the Act exists when union members voluntarily adhere to union rules by obtaining a work permit from a Local Union in whose jurisdiction work is sought. Nor is 8In his testimony, Stevenson admitted refusing to issue the permits on Burnham's and Smith's requests and reminding them of the charges which might be made against them if they worked without a permit, although he was not sure whether Nevers was present at the moment Nevers testified that he heard Stevenson refuse to give Burnham and Smith working permits and I credit his testimony. Burnham testified that Stevenson twice refused their requests for working permits on this occasion, first, in answer to a question by Nevers, and again, in a side conversation with Burnham and Smith which they thereupon reported to Nevers . Smith did not testify. 8 Nevers at first testified that he could not remember Stevenson 's having made such a statement but, upon the General Counsel's showing him his pretrial affidavit , he testified that he then remembered Stevenson had in fact hold him he could not use Burnham and Smith at all. Burnham's testimony and McCue's testimony were to the same effect. Ac- cording to Burnham, "Mr. Nevers asked Mr. Stevenson why he couldn't hire Chester Smith and myself. Mr. Stevenson said that he didn 't have any of his Local 40 men working on this job and that he would not give us a permit until he had a couple of his men working for Mr. Nevers, or for Stop & Shop." And, according to McCue, he overheard Stevenson say either "I can't clear those men," or "I won't okay those men," or "I can't okay those men." CARPENTERS LOCAL NO. 40, ETC. 147 there necessarily a violation if a union member is denied a work permit and reminded of its obligations under its constitution, bylaws or trade rules 4 The difference between a lawful act and one proscribed by law is dependent upon whether the employee alone is given the opportunity to decide on whether to work without a permit. If a union causes or attempts to cause an Employer to deny employment, then it is pulling the rug from under the employee. In effect, it is depriving him from making a free choice and forcing him to be a good union member in derogation of his rights .5 The Board has repeatedly found violations of 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) when unions have engaged in this conduct. Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 100 (Beard Plumbing Company), 128 NLRB 398 and the cases cited therein; Local 215, I.B.E.W., 136 NLRB 1618. On the other hand, Respondents' counsel asserts in his brief that: We do not dispute the proposition that a union may not enlist the aid of an employer to enforce its constitutional provisions. Thus it may not compel an employer to refuse employment to persons without a work permit. This is not the case here for there was no need to seek the employer's support. If there is anything that is clear in this record, it is that the men involved were aware of their union obligations and would not accept employment without first securing a work permit. Nevers had nothing to do with their not going to work. He did not deny them employment or condition their employment upon union approval. Since the men would not accept employment without a permit, the situation never got to the point where Nevers had to make any decisions with respect to their employment. Upon consideration of these arguments, I conclude, in agreement with the Gen- eral Counsel, that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. Upon the fact found, it is clear that the Respondents refused to issue working permits to Burnham and Smith and, through Respondent Stevenson's statement to Foreman Nevers, objected to Stop & Shop's hire of Burnham and Smith. By this combination of acts, the Respondents caused Stop & Shop to refuse to hire Burnham and Smith and thus to discriminate against them in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Respondents thereby prevented Burnham's and Smith's hire on the Cambridge job and committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act .6 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employer 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that the Respondent Local take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that, in violating Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act, the Respondents objected to, and prevented Stop & Shop's hire of Chester Smith and George D. Burnham. Accordingly, it will be recommended that: (1) the Respondent Local notify Stop & Shop in writing, and furnish copies of the notice to Smith and Burnham, that it has withdrawn its objections to the employment of Smith and Burn- ham; and (2) the Respondent Local make Smith and Burnham whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's preventing his hire by * The General Counsel cites Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. (E. M. Readington Co, et al.), 131 NLRB 1131 5 The General Counsel at this point cites Radio Officers Union of Commercial Teleg- raphers v. N.L.R.B., 347 U S. 17. 0 See the Radio Officers case, supra. In view of my findings and conclusions, it is un- necessary to consider the General Counsel's additional argument that, as a member of another 'Carpenters' Local, Foreman Nevers acted as agent of the Respondent Local, as well as agent of Stop & Shop, in refusing to hire Burnham and Smith, and therefore that the Respondent Local was also directly accountable for Nevers' acts 717 -6 72-64-vol 143-11 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Stop & Shop on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, job on November 5, 1962. Such loss in pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula stated in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Furthermore, it will be recommended that the Respondent Local pay interest on said sums, such interest to be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum and, using the Woolworth formula, to accrue commencing with the last day of each calendar quarter of the period on the amount due and owing for each quarterly period. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Stop & Shop, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and the Respondent, Robert Stevenson, is its agent. 3. By causing Stop & Shop, Inc., an employer, to discriminate against Chester Smith an(] George D. Burnham in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondents engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(b) (1) (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. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended: A. That the Respondent Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, its agents (including the Respondent, Robert Stevenson), and its successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees or prospective employees of Stop & Shop, Inc., in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Stop & Shop, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. B. That the Respondent Carpenters Local #40, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO: 1. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Stop & Shop, Inc., in writing, and furnish copies to Chester Smith and George D. Burnham, that it has withdrawn its objections to the employment of Smith and Burnham. (b) Make whole Chester Smith and George D. Burnham, in the manner set forth in the section entitled, "The remedy," for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the Respondents' having prevented his hire by Stop & Shop, Inc., on November 5, 1962. (c) Post copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix, in conspicuous places at its business office in Boston, Massachusetts, where notices to members are customarily posted.v Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall after being signed by a representative of the Respondent be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith.8 7 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "A Decision and Order." 8 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." ALLIED BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTING CO., ETC. 149 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND THE MEMBERS OF OTHER LOCALS OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES OF STOP & SHOP, INC. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees or prospective employees of Stop & Shop, Inc., in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Stop & Shop, Inc., or any other em -ployer, to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make Chester Smith and George D. Burnham whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as a result of their not being hired by Stop & Shop, Inc., on November 5, 1962. CARPENTERS LOCAL #40, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- --- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02108, Telephone Number Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Allied Beverage Distributing Co.; Mack Distributing Company; Hi-State Beverage Co.; The Columbus Distributing Co.; August Wagner Breweries, Inc.; Fifer Distributing Co., Inc.; Mid-Ohio Distributing Co.; York Beer Distributors, Inc; Scioto Beverages Co.; Imperial Beer Distributors , Inc.; Hill Distributing Co.; Capitol Beverage Distributing Co.; Am- bassador Distributing Co.; Fay Distributing Co.; and The Perfecto Distributing Co. and Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 413, affiliated with The International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-5279. June 26, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Mark M. Reynolds, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Mem- bers Leedom and Brown]. 143 NLRB No. 21.