Phil's Sav-Mart Service

PHILS SAV-MART SERVICE 835 Philip David Sachs and Michael Sachs, A Partnership, d/b/a/ Phil's Sav-Mart Service : Peko Ltd; Sav-Co, Inc. d/b/a Sav-Mart and Gary E. Waligorski and David A. Templeman and Steve M. Noel and John A. Pauline. Cases 14-CA-6540-1, 14-CA-6540-2, 14-CA-6540-3, and 14-CA-6540-4 October 19, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On the same date, January 2, 1968, Peko Ltd. and Ben Sachs entered into an agreement wherein Ben Sachs was to act as Peko's agent to supervise the service station, and several others as well, for a weekly salary of $100. The agreement also stated that Ben Sachs was to "supervise" the four service stations as an "independent contractor." There was no require- ment in the agreement that Ben Sachs was to invest any capital or share in any profits or losses. After he had signed,his agreement with Peko Ltd., Ben Sachs installed his son Philip Sachs as the manager of the service station. Philip Sachs entered into a consignment agreement and a sublease agree- ment with Peko Ltd. The consignment agreement guaranteed annual "profits" of $8,000 each year, sub- On June 6, 1972, Administrative Law Judge ' Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only insofar as consistent with this Decision. 1. Noting the absence of any exceptions, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings that both Sav-Co. Inc. d/b/a Sav-Mart and Peko Ltd. are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act; that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over their operations; and that Sav-Co. and Peko Ltd. are so integrated as to comprise a single enterprise. 2. We do not agree with the Administrative Law Judge's further findings that Ben Sachs and Philip Sachs are independent contractors, and that Phil's Sav-Mart Service is not part of this single integrated enterprise. The record shows that Sav-Co. operates a shop- ping center known as Sav-Mart in Collinsville, Illi- nois, and that Phil's Sav-Mart Service, a relatively small service station, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Phil's," is part of that shopping center. The service station was built jointly by Sav-Co. and Mid West Petroleum Co. in about 1967. After it was con- structed, Sav-Co. leased it to Mid West Petroleum. On January 2, 1968, Mid West Petroleum assigned the lease to Peko Ltd? ject to deductions for the employees' wages. There was no requirement in the consignment agreement that Philip Sachs was to invest any capital or share in any profits or losses. Philip Sachs made a $52 capital investment, only to provide petty cash for the initial operation of the station. There was a requirement in the consignment agreement that the station was rein- statement. On the morning of October 4, 1971, Baum was called by Sidney Katz, who told him that Ben Sachs would discuss Templeman's discharge at Baum's of- fice. At the meeting, Ben Sachs told Baum that he would reinstate Templeman; Templeman was subse- quently reinstated as an employee. On the evening of October 4, 1971, Charging Par- ty Gary Waligorski was laid off by Harvey Sachs shortly after he had finished a conversation with an- other business agent for Local 971. The record gives no reason for this, layoff. Immediately after he was laid off, Waligorski was questioned by _Ben Sachs about his union activities. On October 8, 1971, Baum met with Harvey Sachs at the station to ask him to sign a union agree- ment. Harvey said that only his brother Philip could sign a union agreement and agreed to forward the proposed agreement to his brother Philip for signa- ture. On October 15, 1971, Baum learned that Philip Sachs had not yet signed the proposed agreement; Baum then called Sidney Katz, who said he would settle the matter. On October 17, 1971, Ben Pessin, of Sav-Mart/Peko, visited Harvey Sachs and asked him to call Sam Pessin, another Sav-Co./Peko manager, to see if the latter would represent Michael in the signing of the agreement. On October 23, 1971, the Charging Parties set up a picket line to protest the layoff of Waligorski and the imposition of stricter working rules by the ' The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law station's. management after it learned that its employ- Judge" effective August 19, 1972. 2 The record shows that Sav-Co is owned by Sav-Investment Corporation, The record also shows that Peko Ltd is owned by Ben Pessin, Sam Pessin, Ben Pessin, Sam Pessm, Abe Osheroff, Sidney Katz, and Leroy Kopolow Abe Osheroff, and Sidney Katz. 199 NLRB No. 96 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees had organized. Harvey thereupon told Local 971 that Ben Sachs had told him Peko Ltd. wanted the picket line down and the agreement signed. Harvey promised that the contract would be signed on Octo- ber 26. On October 27, 1971, Sidney Katz called Baum to tell him to call Ben Pessin. Pessin subsequently assured Baum that to sell only those products fur- nished by Peko Ltd. at prices fixed by Peko Ltd., and that Peko Ltd. would pay all operational expenses of the station save wages and salaries. The agreement further provided that Philip Sachs would be reim- bursed at the rate of 3 cents a gallon for all gasoline sold. In September 1971 Philip Sachs ceased to man- age the station; Harvey Sachs took over the manage- ment of the station for a weekly salary of $15. After Harvey Sachs took over management of the service station, his younger brother, Michael Sachs, a minor, ran the bulk of the daily operations because Harvey was completing his requirements for his master's de- gree. In the subsequent course of the service station's operation, Ben Sachs operated the station in Michael's absence. The daily receipts of the station were deposited in the safe of the adjacent Sav-Mart store, from which Ben Sachs later withdrew them on- a daily basis. Moreover, during the course of opera- tions, the service station kept the same hours as the adjacent Sav-Mart store, and the Sav-Mart store ad- vertised for the station by means of coupons and a public address system. On September 29, 1971, the Charging Parties, all employees of the service station, signed authorization cards for Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Trades Local 971, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, hereinafter referred to as Local 971. On October 1, 1971, Harvey Sachs laid off one of the employees, Charging Party David Templeman, alleg- edly for "excessive shortages." At that time, Temple- man told Harvey Sachs that the employees had organized. The next day, October 2, 1971, a business agent for Local 971, Lester Baum, learned of Templeman's discharge and called Sidney Katz, one of the manag- ers of the Sav-Co./Peko operation, to obtain his rein- statement. Baum threatened to set up a picket line at the station. Katz asked that Baum delay establishing such a picket line while Katz sought to arrange a meeting to consider Local 971's request for Templeman's the agreement would be signed on Oc- tober 28; Baum then took down the picket line. On October 28, 1971, Ben Sachs, Harvey Sachs, and Michael Sachs met with Baum at Baum's office. When Ben Sachs said that he would not participate in the meeting with any of the Charging Parties present, Baum called Sidney Katz again. Katz asked Baum to tell Ben to come to the telephone, and Ben did so. Shortly thereafter, Ben returned to the meeting and said that the contract with Local 971 would be signed. Michael Sachs thereupon signed his own name and, with a rubber stamp, added Philip's name on the agreement. Finally, at the very end of the meeting, Michael Sachs said that all of the Charging Parties were laid off.' On the foregoing facts, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Ben Sachs and Philip Sachs were independent contractors, and that the service station was not part of the integrated Sav-Mart enter- prise of Sav-Co. and Peko Ltd. Accordingly, he dis- missed the complaint in its entirety, on the ground that the service station, alone, was not shown to sat- isfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Board. Our consideration of these facts leads us to the contrary conclusions. The record shows that Ben Sachs recommended that Peko Ltd. make his son Philip manager of the service station; stopped at the Sav-Mart store each day to pick up the cash receipts from the station; had Templeman reinstated; engaged in questioning Wali- gorski with regard to his union activities; assured Lo- cal 971 that the collective-bargaining agreement between Phil's and Local 971 would be signed; and, in addition, operated the service station in Michael's absence. Furthermore, there is no record evidence that Ben Sachs was employed by anyone else or had any other clients: that he had any capital invested in the position, any chance of capital loss, or any chance of obtaining any profits; or that he had any other indicia of being an independent contractor.4 The last clause in the contract between Ben Sachs and Peko Ltd., which states that Ben is an "independent con- tractor," is totally at variance with the demonstrable facts in this case.' Accordingly, we conclude that Ben Sachs and Philip Sachs are agents for the integrated Sav-Mart enterprise operated by Sav-Co./Peko, and they acted on behalf of Sav-Co./Peko particularly with respect to labor relations policies .6 3 On December 31, 1971, Phil's Sav-Mart service station was closed. 4 See Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 173 NLRB 1366. 5 This clause appears to be motivated by Peko's desire to limit its tort liability to third persons. 6 Our conclusion that Philip Sachs is an agent for the integrated Sav-Mart enterprise is based on the following facts • Philip's sole capital investment was $52, while he was there, Philip performed basically routine manual labor along with the employees at the station ; Philip relinquished each day's re- ceipts to Peko Ltd , and Philip was bound by his consignment agreement with Peko Ltd to use only products furnished by Peko Ltd In effect, Philip Sachs had virtually no capital investment, no risk of significant loss of cap- ital, and, although there is evidence that Philip could assign work to employ- ees, and make some profit, it is clear that he lacked the opportunity to make decisions which would measurably increase his profit and he was limited with regard to the means and manner in which he could manage Phil's as well as with regard to the results of such management See Avis Rent-A-Car, Inc, supra PHILS SAV-MART SERVICE We further conclude that Phil's service station is, in fact, part of the integrated enterprise known as the Sav-Mart shopping center, composed of Sav-Co., Peko Ltd., and Phil's Sav-Mart Service. We reach this conclusion on several grounds. First, as noted above, we have concluded that Philip Sachs and Ben Sachs are not independent contractors. Second, there is am- ple record evidence which impels us to the conclusion that Sav-Co./Peko did, in fact, exercise substantial control over the labor relations policies of Phil's. Third, there is record evidence that there is integra- tion of operations between Phil's and the adjacent Sav-Mart store. We are persuaded by the common management of the three concerns in the operation of the shopping center, including the service station, and particularly the common control of labor relations.' The centralized control of labor relations appears to lie with Sidney Katz, whom Business Agent Baum contacted most frequently in connection with the la- bor dispute at Phil's, and who apparently told Ben Sachs to have the contract between Phil's and Local 971 signed. In prior cases where, as in the present case, we have found common management and centralized control of labor relations between ostensibly separate concerns, we have held that they are, in fact, one integrated enterprise.' Having found such factors in this case, we conclude that Phil's Sav-Mart Service, Sav-Co., and Peko Ltd. are, together, an integrated enterprise. Our conclusion that Sav-Co., Peko Ltd., and Phil's Sav-Mart Service are one integrated enterprise is also reinforced by facts showing a unified opera- tion. Phil's kept the same hours as the Sav-Mart store. Sav-Co. advertised for Phil's by means of coupons and a public address system. Finally, the daily re- ceipts of Phil's were deposited in a safe in the adjacent Sav-Mart store owned by Sav-Co. In effect, Phil's was held out to the public as an integral part of the Sav- Mart department store, in the same manner as the other lessees of the store. 3. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that Phil's Sav-Mart Service is part of an integrated enter- prise composed of Sav-Co., Peko Ltd., and Phil's Sav- Mart Service, and, therefore, that the Board has juris- diction to determine whether or not the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. Since the Administrative Law Judge's Decision makes no findings on these allega- tions, we shall remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge for his issuance of a Supplemental Deci- sion limited to consideration of these issues. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the Administrative Law Judge shall, on the evidence of the record as a whole, 837 prepare and serve on the parties a Supplemental Deci- sion, containing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and recommendations with respect to the unfair labor practice issues , and that, following the service of such Administrative Law Judge's Supplemental Decision on the parties, the case shall be transferred to the Board and the procedures of Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, shall thereafter ap- ply. 7 Sidney Katz, Ben Pessin, and Sam Pessin are officers in the integrated enterprise known as Sav-Co /Peko. 8 Cowles Communications, Inc and Sufsun Co, Inc, 170 NLRB 1596. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAUL E. WEIL, Trial Examiner: Charges were filed with the Regional Director for Region 14 of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, against Phil's Sav-Mart Service, hereinafter called Respondent, on No- vember 17, 1971, by Gary E. Waligorski and David A. Templeman, and on November 18, 1971, by Steve M. Noel and John A. Pauline. Each of the charges alleged, in sub- stantially similar terms, the discharge of the Charging Party and independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) by Respon- dent. On January 11, 1972, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the four cases and a complaint alleging that Phil's Sav-Mart Service was a partnership of Philip David Sachs and Michael Sachs, and that it, together with Sav-Co., Inc., d/b/a Sav-Mart, were joint employers and constitute a single integrated enterprise. The complaint al- leged that Respondent, by Supervisor Ben Sachs, violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogation and threats, and that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by the imposition of more arduous working conditions on, and the layoff of, the four Charging Parties because of their membership and activities on behalf of the Union. Thereafter, Gary Waligorski filed an amended charge naming as the Employer, Respondent, Peko Ltd., hereinafter called Peko, and Sav-Co., Inc., d/b/a Sav-Mart, hereinafter called Sav-Co., and alleging substan- tially the same violations alleged in the individual original charges. An amended complaint was issued by the Acting Regional Director on March 21, 1972. By the duly filed answers and by admissions at the beginning of the hearing, Peko and Sav-Co. admitted the jurisdictional facts with re- gard to those enterprises, but denied that they constitute an integrated enterprise, together with Respondent, or that Re- spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Respondent, by its duly filed answer, denied that it was integrated with Peko or Sav-Co, that it was engaged in commerce, or that Ben Sachs was an agent or supervisor of Respondent, and that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. On the issues thus joined, the matter came on for hearing before me on May 8, 1972. All parties were present, or represented by counsel, and had an oppor- tunity to adduce relevant and material evidence through witnesses or documentary means. The parties had an oppor- 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tumty to argue at the close of the hearing and waived oral argument. Respondents moved to dismiss, at the close of the case, on the ground that there is no evidence that Philip David Sachs and Michael Sachs were partners. Peko and Sav-Co moved to dismiss on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support any allegation against those two Respondents. I reserved ruling on the motions, and they are disposed of in accordance with my decision herebelow. All the parties had an opportunity to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Peko and Sav-Co. On the entire record in this matter, and in consider- ation of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Sav-Co owns a building in Collinsville, Illinois, which is operated as a retail discount department store. All of the departments within the store, and the automotive depart- ment, which is in a nearby building, are operated by enter- prises other than Sav-Co under lease or license agreements. Sav-Co coordinates the advertising of the various enterpris- es, furnishes building maintenance and utility services, and provides check cashing protection service and guard and custodial service for the enterprise. The enterprise, which is called Sav-Mart, gives the appearance of being a single department store. In one comer of the large parking area surrounding Sav-Mart adjacent to the automotive supply store there is a retail gasoline station, which was erected by Sav-Co joint- ly with Mid West Petroleum Company, which owns a lease- hold from Sav-Co on the gasoline station section of the property. Mid West Petroleum Company assigned its lease- hold on this property as well as similar leaseholds in other Sav-Mart Stores operated by other corporations I to Peko. This assignment took place on January 2, 1968. On the same day, Peko signed an agreement with Ben Sachs, pursuant to which Ben Sachs contracted to supervise the four gas service stations subleased to Peko by Mid West Petroleum, advise Peko of the condition of equipment, machinery, and opera- tion of the service stations and of trends of developments in the business, and make necessary recommendations to the operators of the stations concerning their handling of credit cards and cash collections systems, together with the payment of amounts due from the operators to the owner. For this service Sachs, according to the agreement, was to be paid $100 a week. Sometime thereafter Ben Sachs in- stalled his son, Philip David Sachs, as a consignee of Peko at the Collinsville service station. The agreement provides that Philip Sachs shall sell only products supplied by Peko, shall maintain the service station, and render a daily ac- count to Peko. It provides that Peko shall set the price of the products sold and that Philip Sachs shall be reimbursed at the rate of 3 cents a gallon for all gasoline sold. It also provides that Philip Sachs shall be liable for services ren- dered by Peko in the amount of 4 cents per gallon. This would seem to wipe out any possible income to Philip from the operation of the service station. Peko guarantees that 1 The record does not reveal whether the other corporations are in any way integrated with Sav-Co Sachs shall realize a profit before payment of wage and labor costs of $8,000 a year less any losses from credit cards, bad checks, or shortages in cash or inventory. The contract provides that Sachs remit to Peko daily all money received, and that Peko shall pay all expenses of the station with the exception of wages and salaries. At the time Peko entered into the consignment contract with David Sachs, David Sachs was in the Armed Forces. He continued in the Armed Forces until after December 31, 1971, at which time he relinquished the contract. The opera- tion of the service station was largely in the hands of his brother Harvey Sachs, who, although he was a full-time student during the entire period involved, supervised the running of the service station. Michael Sachs, a younger brother, who was apparently 16 years of age when the con- tract was entered into, worked in the service station at an hourly rate at various times between 1968 and the termina- tion of Sachs' connection with the station. Harvey Sachs was furnished with a rubber stamp bear- ing the signature of Philip Sachs. With this stamp he signed a sublease dated February 3, 1969, from Peko to Philip Sachs. He also signed the paychecks given to employees and other documents relating to Respondents' business with the use of the rubber stamp. The parties stipulated that Sav-Co was owned by Ben- jamin and Sam Pessin, Abe Osheroff, Sidney Katz, and LeRoy Kopolow, together with an investment corporation. Each of the owners owned a one-sixth interest in the enter- prise. Kopolow, Katz, and Sam Pessin constitute the board of directors and officers of Sav-Co. The parties also stipulated that Peko is owned by Ben- jamin and Sam Pessin, Abe Osheroff, and Sidney Katz, who also comprise the board of directors and the officers thereof, and each owns 25 percent of Peko. The parties stipulated that Sav-Co provides building space to commercial licensees and lessees at the Sav-Mart premises in Collinsville, and annually derives gross revenue therefrom in excess of $100,000, of which more than $50,000 was derived from enterprises, each of which have annual gross sales at retail in excess of $500,000, and which receive goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 shipped to them directly to Illinois from points outside the State of Illinois. The Respondents also admit that Peko annually imports gasoline and oil products and other goods and ma- terials valued in excess of $50,000 from States other than the State of Illinois to its business operations within the State of Illinois. There is no allegation that Respondent is separately engaged in commerce. I find that both Sav-Mart and Peko are engaged iii commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it would effectuate the purposes of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over their operations. I find further that Peko and Sav-Co are so integrated in owner- ship, management, and operation that they compnse a sin- gle identity for the purposes of the Act. The real issue, of course, is whether Respondent, Phil's Sav-Mart service sta- tion, is so integrated into Peko's or Sav-Mart's operation, or into the Peko-Sav-Mart integrated operation, that the Board is warranted to assume jurisdiction over Respondent, even though its separate business meets none of the Board's yardsticks for the assumption of jurisdiction. PHILS SAV-MART SERVICE In the first place, the record here reveals none of the control over the employee status or labor relations of the licensee that is normally found in retail discount depart- ment store cases. The contracts from Sav-Co to Mid West, from Mid West to Peko, and from Peko to Respondent contain no provisions limiting Respondent in regard to its employees or regulating Respondent in its relations with employees, or the employees' relations with the business. The contract between Philip Sachs and Peko makes him an independent contractor solely for the purpose of managing the station, providing to Peko all control over the products sold and the prices at which they are sold, the maintenance of the station and equipment, the supply of equipment and tools, and the payments for rentals, utility bills, taxes, and all operational costs other than salaries and wages expenses. The only contribution required of Philip Sachs, other than services, is petty cash in the amount of $52. The record reveals no authority on the part of Philip Sachs with regard to any operation of Sav-Co or Peko, other than the Collins- ville filling station, and it reveals no authority on the part of Peko or Sav-Co over Philip Sachs' management or serv- ices at the filling station. The only link between Peko and Respondent, other than the contract, is Ben Sachs, admittedly the agent of Peko, who appears to have had more than a little to do with the management of Phil's Service Station. The record re- veals that Ben Sachs is employed as an independent con- tractor to manage the four Illinois service stations operated by Peko at Sav-Mart stores. Peko's contract with Ben Sachs contains no provisions for his direct management of the service stations, other than that he shall be available for consultation with the operators of the station concerning their handling of the credit cards and monies, which under their individual contracts with Peko are turned over to Peko. The record reveals that, in fact, they are turned over to Ben Sachs. The record reveals that Ben Sachs spent a consider- able amount of time at Respondent's enterprise, that he directed the employees in some of their work, and, indeed, that he interrogated them concerning their union activities. Harvey Sachs, who professedly managed the gas station in the absence of his brother, testified that this was done be- cause of Ben Sachs' fatherly interest in the success of his son's enterprise. Ben Sachs was not called to testify. There is no showing that Ben Sachs had any relationship with either Sav-Co or Peko, other than his contract for supervi- sion of the service stations. The General Counsel has not persuaded me that Ben Sachs' participation in the affairs of the service station was any more than that of a fond father attempting to preserve a source of livelihood for his son during his son's period of military service. When the union organization took place, and the Un- ion threatened to strike the station to get a contract signed, the Union's business agent, failing to get it signed by Har- vey Sachs, communicated at various times with Sidney 839 Katz, an old friend of his, whom he knew to be one of the principals of Sav-Co. After and apparnetly pursuant to his communication with Katz, business agent Baum succeeded in setting up a meeting with Ben, Harvey, and Michael Sachs, at which after some delay the contract was finally signed. Prior to that meeting Mr. Baum had had frequent telephone conversations with Sidney Katz, and one with Abe Osheroff, who called him at Sidney Katz' suggestion, attempting to avert the strike. Before the Sachses finally signed the contract, however, the Union called a strike which lasted a number of days. The General Counsel contends that, notwithstanding the lack of contractual obligation or provision for such in- tercession, Sav-Co-Peko demonstrated the reality of inte- gration by its interposition of a direction to Respondent to sign the contract. However, the General Counsel's evidence does not support this argument. Baum admittedly had no knowledge of the contractual relationship between Peko, Sav-Co, and Respondent. He testified that he had been trying to find out what it was for a long period of time. His appeal to his friend, Sidney Katz, was based on no knowl- edge that Katz had a right to interpose himself or his compa- ny into the labor dispute. There is no showing that Peko or Sav-Co did any more than recommend to Respondent that it sign the contract, or that it had any right to do any more than so recommend. Peko certainly had a right to send its supervising agent, Ben Sachs, into conference with the un- ion agent Baum, since a picket line at the station would harm not only Peko's business through the station, but Sav- Co's business in the Sav-Mart. Ben Sachs came to the bar- gaining table wearing two hats, the representative of Peko, interested in seeing the dispute settled and its business con- tinued without the incumbrance of a picket line, and the representative of his son, interested in preserving the fran- chise, which his father had granted him on behalf of Peko. I find that the control of wages and fringe benefits and the handling of grievances and other employee matters are lodged with Respondent, rather than with Peko or Sav-Co. There is no showing of financial interest or managerial in- terest as between Peko Sav-Co and Respondent. According- ly, I find that the General Counsel has not proven that Respondent is integrated with Peko-Sav-Co. The record does not reveal that Respondent sells products in excess of $500,000 annually, or is otherwise engaged in interstate commerce.2 Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety .3 2 Triumph Sales, Inc, 154 NLRB 916, 918. 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes