Tower Iron Works, Inc.

298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engineering division, and leadmen in the respective depart- ments and locations listed above, exclusive of all other em- ployees; employees of the engineering division permanently assigned to other divisions of the mill, research division employees, dispatcher, assistant dispatchers, telephone op- erators, office clerical and plant clerical employees, technical employees, professional employees, foremen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the joint represent- ative to negotiate for or represent as exclusive bargaining agent the employees in the bargaining unit described above. S. D. WARREN COMPANY, Employer. 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, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Tower Iron Works, Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union No. 523 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural & Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and Independent Metal Fabri- cators Union, Party to the Contract. Case No. 1-CA-4485-2. December 16, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On July 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after, Respondent and the Party to the Contract each filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and Respondent filed a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 15'0 NLRB No. 24. TOWER IRON WORKS. INC. 299 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins]. The Board 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order , the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Tower Iron Works, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION The original charge herein was served upon Respondent on February 18, 1964, the complaint issued on March 31, and the case was heard before Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman on June 3. The issue litigated was whether, by recognizing and contracting with the Independent, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. After the hearing briefs were filed by Respondent and the General Counsel. General Counsel filed a motion to strike certain portions of Respondent's brief, which allegedly were not supported by the record. Respondent opposed this motion and, in turn, filed a motion to strike parts of the General Counsel's brief. Both motions are hereby denied. Upon the entire record,1 and from my observation of the witnesses, I adopt the following findings of fact: 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Tower Iron Works, Inc., herein called Respondent, is a Massachusetts corporation, with its principal office and plant at Seekonk, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron and steel products. Respondent annually ships to out-of-State points goods valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Shopmen's Local Union No. 523 of the International Association of Bridge , Struc- tural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Iron Workers, and Inde- pendent Metal Fabricators Union , herein called the Independent, are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the Act. HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that since February 17, 1964,2 Respondent has rendered unlawful assistance to the Independent, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, by recognizing it as the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees, at a time when a question concerning the representation of such employees existed, and by executing with the Independent, on or about March 2, a collective-bargaining i After the hearing, General Counsel filed a motion to correct the record As there was no opposition thereto, this motion is hereby granted, and It is ordered incorporated in the record as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1. 2 AU events herein occurred in the fall of 1963 and early in 1964 , unless otherwise indicated. 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement covering Respondent's' employees, notwithstanding the pendency of such representation question. The answer denies any violation. A. Sequence of events There is no substantial dispute as to the facts. For over 10 years Respondent has been a member of Building Metal Fabricators- Rhode Island District, hereinafter called the Association. The other members were Providence Steel and Iron Company, Rumford Steel Products, Inc., and John E. Cox Company, Inc., and, since at least 1953, all four companies have bargained through the Association with Iron Workers as the representative of their employees, executing a series of contracts during that period. The last such contract ran from September'l, 1960, to August 31, 1963. Negotiations between Iron Workers and the Association for a new contract began in August 1963, and continued thereafter. Meanwhile, on September 3, Iron Workers called a strike of the employees of the members of the Association, including Respondent, which strike continued to December 16. Some of the strikers were permanently replaced during the strike and others returned before the termination of the strike. The remaining unreplaced strikers were rehired on or after December 16. On January 21 Iron Workers transmitted to the Association and each member thereof, including Respondent, a' copy of a draft of a contract, together with a letter asserting that such draft represented the agreement reached by the parties in negotia- tions, and requesting that the Association and its members sign the draft. On Janu- ary 22 the Association referred Iron Workers to the Association's attorney, Chandler, to whom on January 24 Iron Workers addressed a request in writing for execution of the draft agreement. There is no evidence as to what reply, if any, was made by Chandler. On February 4 the Association was dissolved by its members, without any notice to Iron Workers. On February 11 Iron Workers wrote Respondent and the Association, again soliciting execution of the draft agreement. On February 17 representatives of Iron Workers met with Chandler, and when they again urged execution of the draft agreement, Chandler refused, citing, inter alia, doubt as to, Iron Workers' majority status in the associationwide unit, but omitting any mention of the dissolution of the Association. On February 19 Respondent received a wire from the Independent requesting recognition as the representative of Respondent's employees. On February 21, after ascertaining by means of a card check that the Independent in fact represented a majority of its employees, Respond- ent recognized the Independent, .and on March 2 executed a contract with it covering Respondent's employees.3 - B. Discussion The General Counsel contends that at the time Respondent recognized the Inde- pendent and signed a contract with it there was pending a question concerning the representation of Respondent's employees, raised by Iron Workers continuing claim to represent such employees in the associationwide unit, and that, under the Board's Midwest Piping rule,4 it was unlawful for Respondent to recognize and deal with the Independent in the face of such claim. Respondent contends, initially, that no demand for bargaining was made by Iron Workers upon it but only upon the Association. However, it is clear that Iron Work- 8 On March 10, 1964, a Board Trial Examiner issued a decision in a case arising from a charge by Iron Workers that the Association and its members had during the term of the 4960-63 contract violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, by refusing to furnish certain data to Iron Workers (Case No. 1-CA-4246). The Trial Examiner found such violation, and ordered the Association and respondent to furnish the data in issue, upon request, to Iron Workers, as the statutory representative of the employees in the associationwide unit. That case is now pending before the Board on exceptions by the respondents therein The General Counsel does not here contend that the Trial Examiner's findings in that case are binding here with regard to issues common to both cases=namely, the appro- priatenessof the associationwide unit and the majority status of Iron Workers therein. Nor is it apparent how such findings could be binding here, absent final action thereon by the . Board. Moreover, while such findings ostensibly speak as of the date of the Decision, which issued on March 10; 1964, the'Trial Examiner was necessarily relying on the evidence presented to him, which related only to the situation prior to Septem- ber 1963, and his findings as to the appropriateness of 'the assoclationwide unit and Iron Workers' majority status must therefore be deemed to apply only to that period. * Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060. Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573, at footnote'4. That rule is applicable, whether or not a representation petition Is pending before the Board., TOWER IRON WORKS, INC. 301 ers on January 21, and February 11, transmitted to Respondent, as a member of the Association, a draft of its proposed contract covering the associationwide unit, with a request that it be signed by Respondent, among others. While it is true that this request was predicated upon an associationwide unit, Respondent was thereby put upon notice that Iron Workers still regarded Respondent as part of that unit, and wished to bargain with it on that basis, albeit through its representative, the Association. Respondent's main defense appears to be that the Midwest Piping rule is not applicable here, because Iron Workers' claim was predicated on the associationwide unit, and by the time Respondent recognized the Independent such unit had ceased to be appropriate, the Association having been dissolved.5 This contention brings into focus the central issue of this case-namely, whether the associationwide unit was rendered inappropriate by the dissolution of the Association without any notice to, or consent by, the incumbent union, and while such union was still seeking to negotiate a new agreement. It appears to be well settled that, subject to limitations to be discussed below, an employer is free to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining by manifesting an unequivocal intent to abandon such bargaining procedure in favor of individual bargaining, and that once such withdrawal is properly effected, the employees of such employer will no longer be deemed to be part of the multiemployer unit but will be found by the Board to constitute a separate, appropriate unit. Accordingly, if Respondent (together with the other Association members) properly withdrew from the Association on February 4, it would follow that its employees after that date constituted a separate, appropriate unit and that, by its efforts on February 11 and 17 to complete the negotiations for an associationwide contract, Iron Workers was in effect seeking to continue to represent Respondent's employees in an inappropriate (associationwide) unit. Under such circumstances, the Midwest Piping rule would, as Respondent contends, be inapplicable, and Respondent would be free to recognize the Independent, notwithstanding Iron Workers' claim. However, under Board policy abandonment of multiemployer bargaining is ineffec- tive to remove an employer 's employees from a multiemployer unit , unless it occurs at an appropriate time, and such withdrawal does not occur at an appropriate time if, as here, it takes place during the pendency of negotiations for a new contract, and without the consent of the incumbent unions The Board's latest statement on this point appears in the C & M Construction case, supra, where the Board said: On the facts as set forth above, we ... find that the Respondent's withdrawal was not at a normal appropriate time coming after the commencement of nego- tiations for a new [multi-employerl agreement.? It follows that Respondent was not free to withdraw from multiemployer bargain- ing on February 4, as Iron Workers was then still seeking to complete the negotiations for a new contract and did not consent to such withdrawal .8 s Respondent here relies on William Penn Broadcasting Company, 93 NLRB 1104, hold- ing that a representation claim in an Inappropriate unit does not render unlawful the recognition of another union In an appropriate unit. 9 Walker Electric Company, 142 NLRB 1214 ; Daelyte Service Company, 126 NLRB 63; Cosmopolitan Studios, Inc., 127 NLRB 788, 789; McAnary & Welter, Inc., 115 NLRB 1029; Donaldson Sales, Inc., 141 NLRB 1303. See C & M Construction Co., 147 NLRB 843; Retail Association, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 395. 7 While in the C & M case the Board ultimately concluded that the respondent's with drawal from multiemployer bargaining was effective, this was only because the union Involved was found to have acquiesced In such withdrawal , a factor not here present. 8 While, as already related , Respondent , on February 17, expressed doubt as to Iron Workers' majority status In the Association unit, there Is no evidence or contention that such doubt prompted the dissolution of the Association. Moreover, while Iron Workers' majority status among Respondent's employees was extensively litigated , the only evidence in the record as to Iron Workers' majority status In February 1964 in the association- wide unit consists of certain rulings by the General Counsel explaining the administrative dismissal of refusal-to-bargain charges filed by Iron Workers against the Association, apparently in March 1964 (Case No. 1-CA-4485-1-5). In any event , even if it be assumed that Iron Workers ceased to be the statutory representative of the joint unit before February 4, and that Respondent was privileged for that reason to withdraw on that date from joint bargaining, it would still be necessary to determine the question next consid- ered in the text-namely, whether Respondent manifested Its intent to withdraw In an appropriate fashion. 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Moreover, even if Respondent were deemed free to withdraw from joint bargaining on February 4, it would still be necessary to determine whether it took the steps necessary to effect such withdrawal. It is well settled that an employer may withdraw from joint bargaining only by unequivocally manifesting his intent to be bound in the future by individual, rather than joint, action,9 and that an equivocal withdrawal will not suffice.1° While the dissolution of the Association, considered alone, might be deemed to be an unequivocal manifestation of the intent of the employer-members to abandon joint bargaining and pursue individual negotiations in the future, subse- quent events cast doubt on this interpretation. If on February 4 such employers in fact intended no longer to deal with Iron Workers (or any other union) for the joint unit, it is not clear why such intention was not disclosed to Iron Workers at the time of the dissolution of the Association, nor why, when Iron Workers 2 weeks later pressed Chandler, as spokesman for the Association, for the reason for the Associa- tion's rejection of the proposed contract, he avoided any mention of the dissolution action. Indeed, the reasons he cited to Iron Workers for rejecting its contract- that the Association (1) had not agreed to such contract, and (2) questioned the Iron Workers' majority status in the associationwide unit-implied that the Asso- ciation was still functioning, that the associationwide unit was still in existence, and that, if Iron Workers could prove is majority status or present an acceptable contract, an obstacle to an associationwide agreement would be removed. While Chandler intimated that there were other reasons for the rejection of the contract, he refused to elucidate those reasons, although pressed by Iron Workers to do so. The foregoing cloak of secrecy surrounding the Association's dissolution, the absence of any explanation for such secrecy,11 Chandler's deliberate refusal to lift that cloak, and his implying instead that the Association was still in existence would seem to be inconsistent with the Board's requirement that, to be effective, an employ- er's withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining must be unequivocal. Such conduct is more consistent with an intention to straddle the issue of joint bargaining versus individual bargaining, in the hope of deriving the maximum tactical advantage from such ambiguous position. Thus, while Chandler, by questioning Iron Workers' majority status in the associationwide unit, interposed an obstacle to any immediate resumption of joint bargaining, he at the same time avoided any statement that would have committed Respondent (and the other Association members) to individual bar- gaining. Thereby, he not only frustrated any further joint bargaining, but also deterred Iron Workers from seeking separate bargaining. The foregoing circumstances also lend force to the General Counsel's contention that Respondent should, in any case, be held to be estopped to assert as a defense that a unit limited to Respondent's employees is alone appropriate, and that Iron Workers' claim in the larger unit was therefore for an inappropriate unit. In that respect, the situation here is strikingly like that in the Daelyte Service case.12 There Daelyte had been a member of an employer-association, which in 1955 executed a collective- bargaining contract to expire on April 15, 1957. In November 1956, during the term of this contract, Daelyte resigned from the association but no notice of such resigna- tion was given to the union until June 15, 1957, and then only after it had negotiated a new contract with the association, which was presented to Daelyte for its signature. The Board held that under these circumstances Daelyte was estopped from asserting that only a separate unit of its employees was appropriate. It follows from this that Respondent's defense that no timely claim was made by Iron Workers in a unit limited to Respondent's employees must fail, either because the multiemployer unit was still the appropriate unit at all times here material, absent any timely or unequivocal withdrawal therefrom by Respondent, or because Respond- ent was, in any event, estopped from relying on such defense in view of the conceal- ment of such withdrawal.13 e See, e g., Des Homes Packing Company, 106 NLRB 206. iu Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc., et at., 106 NLRB 562 ; Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808. u At the hearing Respondent offered no explanation therefor ; and Respondent's brief contains on this point merely an attempt to supply legal justification for such secrecy, asserting that Iron Workers was no longer the statutory representative of the joint unit, and therefore, no duty of disclosure was owed to it (see footnote 13, below, as to the validity of this contention). However, the brief does not assert that this was in fact the reason for the nondisclosure. 19 See footnote 6, supra. Is In its brief, Respondent contends that it should not be held to be estopped from rely- ing on the undisclosed dissolution of the Association, as no duty of disclosure was owed TOWER IRON WORKS, INC. 303 I find, therefore, that Iron Workers' demand, as late as February 17, for recogni- tion and bargaining with respect to the associationwide unit raised a valid question concerning representation in such unit, and that Respondent's conduct in recognizing, and contracting with, the Independent in the face of such demand violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. It will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to withdraw all recognition from the Independent as the representative of any of its employees, and unless and until the Independent shall have demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees. It will also be recom- mended that Respondent be ordered to cease giving force and effect to the collective- bargaining agreement of March 2. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive terms of employment, which Respondent has established in the performance of its contract, or to prejudice the assertion by its employees of any right that they may have thereunder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Iron Workers and the Independent are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By recognizing, and contracting with, the Independent during the pendency of a question concerning representation, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) and (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 entire record in this case, and the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, Tower Iron Works, Inc., Seekonk, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting, or contributing support to, Independent Metal Fabricators Union or any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing Independent Metal Fabricators Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ- ment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclu- sive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees. to Iron Workers, in view of Its asserted loss of majority status. Respondent cites no legal authority for this contention. Under common law rules of agency, it is clear that, as the Respondent and the other Association members had dealt with Iron Workers through their joint agent (the Association), it was incumbent upon them to notify Iron Workers of any termination of the Association's authority. See 2 C.J.S. Agency § 77, at 1166-1167 It follows that, absent such notice, Iron Workers was entitled to assume that the Association was still empowered to bargain jointly for its members, that the assocla- tionwide unit was therefore still appropriate, and that any claim in a lesser unit would be Invalid. Moreover, there is involved here more than a mere act of omission. The Association's assignment of its reasons for rejecting Iron Workers contract , which im- plied that the associationwide unit was still in existence, were tantamount to affirmative representations to that effect. 775-692-65-vol. 150-21 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of March 2, 1964, between Respondent and Independent Metal Fabricators Union, or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof; provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall require Respondent to vary, any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which Respondent has established in the performance of this agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights 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: 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Independent Metal Fabricators Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees. (b) Post at its plant at Seekonk, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 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 such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.15 v In the event that 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. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a 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." "In the event that 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 steps the 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 Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT assist, or contribute support to,, Independent Metal Fabricators Union, or any other labor organization of our employees. WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Independent Metal Fabricators Union as the representative of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, wages, hours, or other conditions of work, unless and until said Union is duly certified by the Board as such representative. WE WILL NOT give any effect to the contract negotiated by us on March 2, 1964, with said Union, or any renewal, extension, modification, or supplement, thereof. We are not, however, required to vary any wage, hour, seniority, or other term of employment established under said contract, and our employees are free to assert any rights they may have thereunder. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Shopmen's Local Union No. 523 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively, ithrough representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective- SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC. 305 bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. TOWER IRON WORKS, INC., Employer. 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, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Southern Transport, Inc. and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union #568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 26- CA-1781. December 16, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed by Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union #568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- gional Director for Region 26, issued a complaint dated June 16, 1964, against Southern Transport, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the Union was and is the exclusive representative of certain employees of the Respondent in the appropriate unit certified on September 17, 1962, by the Regional Director, and that on or about March 16, 1964, and thereafter the Respondent unlaw- fully refused to bargain with the Union. The Respondent's answer, filed on June 26, 1964, admits certain jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission of unfair labor practices. Thereafter, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipula- tion of facts, and requested that the proceeding be transferred di- rectly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order. The request states that the parties have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance 150 NLRB No. 20.