Granada Mills, Inc.

GRANADA MILLS, INC. 957 The control exercised by the Company over the work of owners and drivers is for the purpose of complying with the rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission and is not inconsistent with the independent contractor relationship. That the owners retain substantial independence in their operations is clearly revealed by their virtual freedom in deciding when or whether they will take an assignment, in selecting routes of travel, in fixing the time of delivery and return, in determining whether they or others will drive their vehicles, and by their freedom to select their own maintenance facilities. Moreover, the parties herein expressly indicated their intent that the owners and drivers of leased tractors were not to be employees of the Company. Thus, the Company does not withhold income or social security taxes, or pay for workman's compensation for the drivers of the leased tractors, or provide the employment benefits of its own employees to the owners and their drivers, nor are its rules and regulations given to or applied to the over-the-road drivers. If bonds are required to be posted, the owners usually must furnish them as they must furnish the license plates of their home State. In view of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole we find that the owner-drivers of the leased tractors are independent con- tractors rather than employees and that the nonowner-drivers are employees of the independent contractors and not the Company. Ac- cordingly, as there are no employees of the Employer in the unit requested, we shall grant the Employer's motion and dismiss the peti- tion herein. [The Board dismissed the petition]. Granada Mills, Inc. and International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO. Case No. 924-CA-1712. July 31, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 16, 1963, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate 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 attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. 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 Rodgers and Fanning]. 143 NLRB No. 102. 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and exceptions, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 1 Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that its promise of air conditioning and a cafeteria violated Section 8(a)(1) because it was not alleged as a violation in the complaint Under the Board's rule enunciated in Monroe Feed Store, 112 NLRB 1336, it is established that "when an issue relating to the subject matter of a complaint is fully litigated at a hearing the Trial Examiner and the Board are expected to pass upon it even though it is not specifically alleged in the complaint." Here, the reasons for the promise of the air-conditioning system and cafeteria were gone into, all of the relevant testimony was introduced , and witnesses were examined and cross- examined without objection from the Respondent The issue was, therefore , fully litigated, and, as we agree with the Trial Examiner's resolution of the Issue , and as the Respond- ent's conduct in this regard was part of his general campaign to restrain employees in their exercise of Section 7 rights which was in other respects alleged to violate Section 8(a) (1), we find no merit In the exception. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 et seq.), herein called the Act, was heard before Trial Examiner Lee J. Best in Santurce, Puerto Rico, on April 15 to 16, 1963, pursuant to notice and with all parties represented at the hearing. Based upon a charge filed on January 18, 1963, by International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Local 600, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on March 5, 1963, issued a complaint alleging in substance that Granada Mills, Inc., herein called the Respondent , has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent on March 8, 1963, filed an answer admitting jurisdictional allegations of the complaint , and denying all allegations of unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to introduce evidence per- tinent to the issues involved, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to argue orally upon the record. The filing of formal written briefs with the Trial Examiner was waived by all parties, but were authorized to submit by May 1, 1963 , memoranda of law bearing upon issues of law involved. Counsel for the General Counsel sub- mitted such memoranda , and mailed a copy thereof to counsel for the Respondent on April 29, 1963. From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Granada Mills, Inc., is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , having its principal office and place of business in Caguas, Puerto Rico, where it operates a plant or factory engaged in the manufacture of undergarments for women . During the past 12 months, which period is representative of all times material herein, the Respondent purchased out- side the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , and caused to be shipped directly to its plant in Caguas, Puerto Rico , raw materials valued in excess of $50,000; and during the same period shipped its manufactured products valued in excess of $50,000 to points located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico . I find, therefore, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. GRANADA MILLS, INC. 959 Supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of the Act include Mayer Hafets (plant manager), Carmen Garcia, Margarita Alejandro, and Luis Aponte. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in whole or part for the purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The organizational campaign The Union launched an organizational campaign among employees of Granada Mills, Inc., in the early part of January 1963. Gregoria Cartagena (president and business agent of Local 600) was assigned to this project. Her chief assistant was Maria Antonio Martinez, a volunteer worker and member of the Union from the nearby Paula brassiere plant, which had already been organized prior to that time. Other organizers including Felicita Cruz, Emilio Rodriguez, and Regino Martinez participated in the organizational effort. All solicitation of prospective members occurred outside the Granada plant on the streets and at a nearby bus-diner to which the employees customarily resorted during their lunch period. Representatives of the Union also interviewed employees at their homes after work hours at night. No solicitation or interviewing was attempted by the Union on the premises of the Em- ployer. Certain witnesses called by the Respondent, including Clemencia Rodriguez and Teresa de Jesus admittedly reported these activities to Plant Manager Mayer Hafets, and asserted that they were being harassed and molested. Consequently, the plant manager called a meeting of all employees in the plant at approximately 9:30 a.m. about the middle of January 1963. At this meeting he made a speech discussing various subjects including the Union. Next day after this general meeting, he called a select group of five or six employees into his office to make further inquiries with respect to their participation in the union activities. Thereafter, the charge in this case was filed with the Board on January 18, 1963. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion The substantive testimony of witnesses bearing upon the conduct of Respondent appears in the record, as follows: Clemencia Rodriguez (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that, when Gregoria Cartagena and Maria Antonio Martinez came to her home trying to organize a union, she refused to sign a card, told them that she was not interested because there were no problems-that she would let someone else take the initiative- that within the next day or two following this interview she was insulted at the bus- diner by being called a rat, snitcher, and apple polisher-that she went to her boss (Hafets) and told him that she was nervous and would not be able to continue work- ing-that Hafets then called in two or three others to inquire if the same things were happening to them. Thereafter, she attended a meeting of all employees at which Hafets talked about the longshoremen's strike then in progress and about in- stalling an air-conditioning system in the plant at a cost of forty or fifty thousand dollars-that she did not hear everything he said, becaues she was too far away, walking back and forth and eating, and she did not hear him say anything about closing the factory, but did hear him inquiring whether anyone had been bothering them. Teresa de Jesus (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that Gregoria Cartagena (also known as Lolita) and Maria Antonio Martinez visited her home on January 5, 1963, gave her a card and said they were trying to organize a union in the plant-that she refused to sign until they had obtained a majority-that she stopped going to lunch at the bus-diner, because they were having trouble out there- and she reported these incidents to Hafets as soon as they happened-and told him that if things kept going like they were, and people kept talking so much, that she would have to resign from her job-that she voluntarily went to see Hafets several times about it, and everybody thought she was making reports to the factory. During the month of January 1963, she attended a meeting of all employees in the plant about 9:30 a.m. at which Hafets talked about the longshoremen's strike and other problems, about a proposed air-conditioning system and cafeteria, but did not hear him say anything about closing the factory. After this big meeting, Super- visor Carmen Garcia asked her "were you visited by the Union? Are you also one of those that are being molested outside?" After that Hafets called in those who had 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD complained to him, and inquired what was the matter. After explaining what had happened to her, Hafets repeated that they could do absolutely nothing to us-not to be afraid. Gertrudis Rojas (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that about the middle of January 1963, she was approached during her lunch period at the bus- diner by Gregoria Cartagena and Maria Antonio Martinez, who inquired whether she would like for the factory to be organized, but she made no reply because she did not know anything about it. Thereafter, she attended a meeting in the plant at which approximately 75 employees were present. Hafets talked about installing an air- conditioning system at a cost of about $50,000. He also talked about the longshore- men's strike and a proposed cafeteria, but did not say anything about closing the plant. He said that some of the girls were being bothered, and inquired of the group if any of them had been molested. Clemencia Rodriguez (nicknamed "Tuti") and Teresa de Jesus reported to him that they had been molested. After this meeting of all employees, Supervisor Carmen Garcia told me to go into the office of Hafets along with Teresa de Jesus, Carmen Aponte, Esperanza Nieves, and Julia Maria Perez. Supervisors Carmen Garcia and Luis Aponte were also present. There, Hafets asked me if she was being molested, and she told him "No." He asked each of the other girls the same thing. Thereupon, Hafets told them not to worry-that it was noth- ing. Before going to his office, she had told Hafets that she had been visited at her home, and that she did not sign a union card. Jose Abreu (employee), as a witness for the Respondent, testified that he had served 1 year as assistant treasurer (since resigned) and bookkeeper of a cooperative credit union in the plant, which was sponsored and supervised by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. All officers and directors thereof were elected by employees of the Respondent. Supervisor Carmen Garcia was president and Supervisor Margarita Alejandro was a member of the credit committee. He attended the meeting of em- ployees about the middle of January 1963, when Hafets talked about installing an air-conditioning system at an estimated cost of forty or fifty thousand dollars, the proposed cafeteria, and the shipping strike of longshoremen on the docks through- out Puerto Rico. Hafets said that the strike would not affect us in any way, because our raw materials come from the island and our products would be sold at cost on the island-that everything possible was being done to install an air-conditioning system in the plant, and to acquire a lot behind the plant as a site for the cafeteria. Hafets specifically said that he did not intend to close the factory because of the strike, and I did not hear him make any threat to close the plant because of a union trying to come in-that he had heard nothing about any union activity to organize the plant. Carmen Aponte (employee), as a witness for the General Counsel, testified that Maria Antonio talked to her about the Union during lunch periods at the bus-diner. Thereafter, Hafets called a meeting of all employees in the plant about 9:30 a.m. one morning in January 1963, and made a speech to them about the shipping strike and the Union. With respect to the strike, he said that his plant would continue operations because he was selling most of his products locally, and there would be work for them to do. Then he started talking about the Union, and said that he would close the factory if it got into the plant-that 25 or 30 employees had signed union cards, and he would find out who they were. Next day after this meeting, he called several of the girls into his office, including herself, Julia Maria Perez, Esperanza Nieves, Teresa de Jesus, Gertrudis Rojas, and the supervisors (Carmen Garcia and Luis Aponte). Supervisor Carmen Garcia reported that she (Carmen Aponte) had been visited at her home by union representatives. Hafets asked her and each of the others why they signed the union papers, and she denied having signed anything or that she had been visited at her home. About 1 week later in January 1963, Gregoria Cartagena came to her home in company with Harry Martin field examiner for the N.L.R.B.), and she signed a written statement for him. Next day after signing such statement, Supervisor Margarita Alejandro came to her at work in the plant and in- quired whether she had been visited by the Union at her home. Thereupon, she admitted that they had been to her home on the preceding night. Julia Maria Perez (employee), as a witness for the General Counsel, testified that she was approached by representatives of the Union during the early part of January 1963. Maria Antonio Martinez talked to her at the bus-diner during lunch periods, and inquired whether she would like to have the Union come into the plant. At that time she gave no definite answer, because she did not understand much about it, but at a later date signed a union card when they visited her home to explain more about it. About the middle of January, thereafter, a meeting of all employees was called in the plant about 9:30 a m. At this meeting Hafets spoke about the shipping GRANADA MILLS, INC. 961 strike, saying that some factories had very little work to do, but that his plant was working along smoothly. Then he said that he could not allow the Union to come in because it would be the downfall of the plant-that 30 or 35 employees had signed union cards , and that he knew who they were-that if the Union came in he would have to pay it about $50,000, and would be forced to close the factory. He also pro- posed to install an air-conditioning system in the plant , saying that it would cost him some money, but that he was going to put it in. He was speaking to the entire group of about 100 employees, some of whom were sitting on boxes, and others were standing around. She was standing near the packing tables about 35 or 40 feet from Hafets, and he was talking loud enough for all to hear what he said. He did not directly threaten to do so, but she concluded from what was said that he was against the Union and might even suspend from work those who had signed union cards. Shortly after this meeting five or six of the female employees , including herself, Carmen Aponte, Gertrudis Rojas, Esperanza Nieves, and Teresa de Jesus were called to the office of Plant Manager Hafets in the presence of Supervisors Carmen Garcia and Luis Aponte . At that time Hafets inquired of each of them why they had signed up with the Union. She specifically denied having signed anything . There- after, on or about January 25, 1963, she signed a written statement when a representa- tive of the National Labor Relations Board came to her home . After the signing of this statement, one of the supervisors either Carmen Garcia or Margarita Alejandro ) inquired of her whether someone had visited her home. Esperanza Nieves (employee ), as a witness for the General Counsel testified that she signed a union card when representatives of the Union (Gregoria Cartagena and Maria Antonio Martinez ) came to her home in January 1963 . Thereafter, Supervisor Carmen Garcia inquired of her whether she had signed up with the Union , and about 2 hours later instructed her to go to the office of Plant Manager Hafets. Others present in the office included Gertrudis Rojas, Julia Maria Perez, Carmen Aponte, and two supervisors (Carmen Garcia and Luis Aponte ). Hafets asked Julia Maria Perez why she had signed for the Union , and she denied having done so, but asked him to explain things to her about the Union . Hafets explained what a union was, and told her that if a union came into the plant he would be forced to close the factory if he could not pay the workers more wages-that if the bosses were not in agreement, they would be forced to close the plant, but that would not be his reason for doing so. He said that he had called us in to see how many signed the union paper-that he was not doing it to threaten us, but was doing so just to find out . He was addressing the entire group, and I told him that I had signed the card without knowing what a union was . After receiving a subpena to come here (to the hearing), I went to see Hafets and asked him whether or not it would be beneficial for me to come-that I had nothing against him and nothing against the Union either. He just said that it was up to me. Concluding Findings It is entirely clear from all the evidence in this case that certain employees of the Respondent, including Clemencia Rodriguez, Teresa de Jesus, and Gertrudis Rojas were not in sympathy with efforts of union representatives to form a labor organiza- tion at Granada Mills, Inc. Consequently, they kept Plant Manager Mayer Hafets informed concerning the activities outside his plant. To combat such activities, Hafets called a meeting of all employees and made promises to install air conditioning and a cafeteria , which promises have not yet been fulfilled . He also assured them that the plant would continue operations despite a longshoremen's strike that had stopped all shipments from the ports of Puerto Rico. Then he talked about the union activities being engaged in by his own employees, and inquired if any of them were being molested by the organizers of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. In that respect, the testimony of those opposed to the Union is singularly lacking in substance, but I credit the straightforward and credible testimony of Carmen Aponte, Julia Maria Perez, and Esperanza Nieves as to what the plant manager said in his speech concerning their organizational campaign . From a preponderance of the evidence, I find that Plant Manager Hafets asserted that 30 or 35 of his employees had signed up with the Union, and that he either knew or would find out who they were-that he would not allow a union to come in , because it would be the downfall of the plant, and would force him to close the factory. Following the meeting with all employees , Supervisor Carmen Garcia interrogated Teresa de Jesus as to whether she had been visited or molested by the union rep- resentatives . She also interrogated Esperanza Nieves as to whether she had signed up for the Union. Next day after the meeting, Carmen Aponte, Julia Maria Perez, Gertrudis Rojas, Esperanza Nieves, and Teresa de Jesus were summoned along with 962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Supervisors Carmen Garica and Luis Aponte , to a conference with Plant Manager Hafets in his private office . At this interview, Hafets specifically queried each of these employees as to why they had signed the union papers. Some of them denied having signed anything. Later during the month of January 1963, Carmen Aponte and Julia Maria Perez signed written statements for a field examiner of the Board (Harry Martin ) as a part of the investigation of the charges filed herein. Im- mediately thereafter, each of these employees was again interrogated by Supervisor Margarita Alejandro or Carmen Garcia as to whether they had again been visited by representatives of the Union. By the aforesaid conduct of Plant Manager Mayer Hafets and Supervisors Carmen Garcia and Margarita Alejandro , I find that the Respondent created the impression that the union activities of employees were being kept under surveillance , and that the plant would be closed if the Union was designated as bargaining representative for its employees . By such interrogation creating the impression of surveillance by the Respondent, by promising the installation of an air-conditioning system and cafeteria in the plant to persuade employees to refrain from organizational activities, and by threatening to close the factory if the Union came in , I find that the Respond- ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; thereby engaging in unfair labor practices pro- scribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The conduct and activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, oc- curring in connection with the operations of the Respondent, set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, burdening and obstructing commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of Respondent's efforts to impede the organizational activities of its employees, it will be further recommended that the cease -and-desist order of the Board shall prohibit the Respondent from engaging in any like or re- lated unlawful conduct. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Ladies Garment Workers Union , Local 600, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2) and 8(a) of the Act. 3. By (1 ) interrogating its employees individually and collectively with respect to their concerted activities on behalf of a labor organization, thereby creating an im- pression of surveillance of their organizational activities ; and (2 ) by promising the installation of an air-conditioning system and cafeteria in its plant to discourage membership and support of a labor organization; and (3 ) by threatening to close its plant and engage in other economic reprisals against employees if they formed a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) 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 , conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Granada Mills, Inc., its officers, agents, supervisors, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees individually or collectively concerning their union membership, activities, or affiliations. (b) Engaging in or creating the impression that it is engaging in the surveillance of the organizational activities of its employees. GRANADA MILLS, INC. 963 (c) Threatening its employees with loss of employment by closing its factory or other economic reprisals if they designate the Union or any other labor organiza- tion as their bargaining representative. (d) Promising its employees to install an air-conditioning system, cafeteria, or any other inducement tending to cause them to withdraw their support of the Union or any other labor organization. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in its office and factory at Caguas, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respond- ent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2 It is further recommended that unless the Respondent shall, within the prescribed period notify the said Regional Director that it will comply, the Board shall issue an order requiring Respondent to take action as aforesaid. 1 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 2 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what step's Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 our employees that: WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees individually or collectively concerning their union membership , activities, or affiliations. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment by closing our factory or other economic reprisals if they designate International Ladies Gar- ment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. WE WILL NOT promise our employees to install an air-conditioning system, cafeteria, or offer any other inducement to persuade them to refrain from desig- nating a bargaining representative of their own choosing. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem- bers of International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- 717-672--64-vol. 143-62 964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. GRANADA MILLS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------_ (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from 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, 1506 Ponce de Leon, Stop 221/2, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00910, Telephone No. 723-3200, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. The Bin-Dicator Company and Floyd Hanger The Bin-Dicator Company and John Masinick. Cases Nos. 7-CA- 3918 and 7-CJ-3918(2). July 31, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 3, 1963, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and support- ing briefs. 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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, 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 Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.2 We affirm the Trial Examiner's finding that Floyd Hanger was dis- criminatorily discharged on September 12, 1962, because of his known activity on behalf of, and membership in, the Union. The Trial Ex- aminer recommended that Hanger be denied reinstatement and back- 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's state- ment that the conversation between Foreman Hoenicke and employee Stone, which oc- curred in a bar 2 or 3 weeks after the election, was noncoercive In character. We note and hereby correct the Trial Examiner's Inadvertent error in referring to the veiled threat by Grostick on September 12, 1962, as made to Cahoon rather than to Stone. 'The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's apparently inadvertent failure to recommend specifically that John Masinick be awarded the general wage increase which the Trial Examiner found had been discriminatorily withheld from him on September 12, 1962. We find merit in the General Counsel's exception. Accordingly, we shall modify the Trial Examiner's recommendations by ordering the Respondent to grant to Masinick the wage increase. 143 NLRB No. 94.