General Furniture Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and FURNITURE WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1007 Case No. 0-813.-Decided August 3, 19110 Jurisdiction : furniture manufactuung industry. Unfair Labor Practices Discrimination- discharges and refusal to reinstate, charges of, dismissed. Although through mutual inadvertence or mistake of the parties, a contract failed to contain the respondent's promise to require union membership as a condition of employment, a requirement known to exist by all interested parties, the Board considered and treated the contract as a closed-shop con- tract in accordance with the parties' understanding. Respondent held to have been justified in recognizing the substitution of local unions by the parent organization as one which invested the successor local with all the rights and privileges formerly enjoyed by the predecessor under a closed-shop contract and that its action in discharging and refusing to reinstate non-members of the successor local was privileged under the Act and did not constitute unfair labor practices Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed. Mr. William A. Babcock, Jr., and Mr. Patrick H. Walker, for the Board. Monheimer ct Griffin, by Mr. Van C.' Griffin, and Mr. Melville Monheimer, of Seattle, Wash., for the respondent. Houghton, Cluck cQ Coughlin, by Mr. Paul Coughlin, of Seattle, Wash., for Local No. 1007. Mr. L. Presley Gill, of Seattle, Wash., for Local No. 2097. Mr. F. Hamilton Seeley, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Furniture Workers Union Local 1007, herein called Local No. 1007, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint, dated Jime 16, 1938, against General Furniture Manufacturing Com- pany, Seattle, Washington, herein called the respondent, alleging that 26 N. L. R. B., No. S. 74 ' GENERAL' FURNITURE "MANUFACTURING COMPANY .75 the,respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and, Section 2 (6) ^ and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat: 449,E herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent , Local No. .1007, and Furniture Workers Union , Local No. 2097 , 'herein called Local No. 2097; a labor organization named in the complaint. On June 21 , 1938, Local No. 2097 moved the Regional Director for leave to intervene in the proceeding . On Juno 22 , 1938, the Regional Director granted the motion. 'Concerning the unfair labor practices , the complaint , alleged, in 'substance; that the respondent (1) by, on or about January 20, 1938, discharging amid refusing thereafter to reinstate 3 employees 1 and on February 11, 1938, discharging 'and refusing thereafter to reinstate 2 employees,2 solely because they were not members of and had refused to, join Local No. 2097, discriminated against said employees to eu- courage',ntembership in a labor organization, and (2 ) by the foregoing and other acts, :interfered with, restrained ,, and coerced its employees in, the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On June 21 , 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint in which it^ admitted certain allegations concerning the nature and scope "of its busines's but denied the allegations concerning the unfair -labor practices . The answer alleged affirmatively that on March 24, "1938; the respondent had entered into a contract with Local No. 1007 'covering wages, hours, and conditions of work, and that this contract contained a closed-shop provision ; that subsequent to entering into said contract with Local No. 1007 , the respondent had been advised that a majority of the members of Local No 1007 had petitioned its paren't,lorganization to, cancel its charter , that this had been done, ,and that Local No. 2097 had been chartered in its stead ; that Local No., 2097 now represented the respondent 's employees and, was entitled ' to enforce the existing contract , including the closed-shop provision thereof; and that respondent had refused to reemploy 3 employees 'on January 20 and had discharged 2 employees on Feb'. ruary Ul at the request of Local No .,2097 pursuant to the terms of said contract ' " Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties , a hearing was hold on June '30 and July 1, 1938, at Seattle, Washington , before Jesse E. Jacobson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, Local No 1007, and Local No . - 2097 were representedby counsel" and participated in the hearing . At the hear- mg,,,witl'i the exception noted below , full opportunity to he heard, to Stephen Russell, Joe Black, and D,,n,tri Jovick. I,Roy ifedford'and Mons Lien 76 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL' ,LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner excluded. evidence concerning the parties' construction of the contract of March 24, 1937, and the prac- tice of the parties under said contract. This evidence was material 'and its exclusion by the Trial Examiner was erroneous. However, in view of its subsequent admission to the record, as indicated below, we find that the rights of the parties were not prejudiced by this ruling of the Trial Examiner.' At the outset of the hearing the respondent and Local No. 2097 each moved to dismiss the complaint for the reason that it was predicated upon a charge filed by Local. No. 1007 which they contended was a non-existent organization. These motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. His ruling is hereby affirmed.' At the conclusion of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion made by the Board's attorney to conform the complaint to the proof. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made other rulings upon motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On August 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner- issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting- commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and, affirmatively, reinstate with back pay the 5 employees named in the complaint as having been unlawfully discriminated against, and.post appropriate notices. On August 15 and August 17, 1938, Local No. 2097 and the respondent, respectively filed their exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The respondent also requested oral argument before the Board. Permission having been granted to all parties by the Board, on January 15 and January 17, 1939, respectively, the respondent and Local No. 2097 filed briefs., On May 13, 1939,'the Board notified all parties that the hearing for the purpose of oral argument which had previously been scheduled for May 18, 1939, was postponed to May 19, 1939. On the same day. the respondent, by letter, waived oral argument. None of the parties appeared at the, scheduled hearing for oral argument. 3 The Act authorizes the Board to issue a complaint whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in unfair labor practices The Board has provided in its Rules and Regulations that "a charge that any person has engaged in or is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce may be made by any person or labor organization " The function of the charge is to call the attention of the Board to the fact that ceitain unfair labor practices are alleged to have been committed A charge is merely the means whereby action on the part of the Board is instituted and is not a formal pleading filed by a party to the proceeding. The authority of a labor organization to act on behalf of employees or the authority of a particular individual to act on behalf of a labor organization , in filing the charge, cannot be questioned by the respondent or by a party such as the intervenor is here 'GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 77 On July 19, 1939, the Board, having duly considered the matter, ordered,' pursuant to Article II, Section 35, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, that the record be reopened, that a further hearing be held for the purpose of introducing evidence as, to. the parties' construction of the afore-mentioned con- tract and"as to the practice of the parties-under the said contract, and that the proceedings be remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting such further hearing, and authorized the Regional Director t6 serve notice of further hearing. On September 7, 1939, the Regional Director duly served all parties with notice of such further hearing. Pursuant to notice, a further hearing was held on September 21, 22, and 23, 1939, at Seattle, Washington, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. All parties were represented by counsel and pa'r'ticipated in the further hearing. Full opportunity was afforded all 'parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to,'iiitroduce evidence bearing upon the issues for the determination of which the further hearing was held. At the conclusion of the further hearing, counsel for the Board made a motion to conform the pleadings to the' proof. The Trial Examiner did not rule upon this motion:' ' The motion is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner made rulings `on'other motions and on objections to the admission of evi- denec. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 20, 1939, the Board ordered that no Intermediate Report should be issued by the Trial Examiner in the-further hearing and, pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order should be issued and that the parties should have the right, within 20 days from the receipt of said Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con- clusions of Law, and Proposed Order, to file exceptions thereto, to request oral argument before the Board, and to request permission to file a brief with the Board. On June 24, 1940, the Board issued and duly served upon the parties copies of its Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, - and Proposed Order. Therein, pursuant to Article II, Sec- tion 37, of its Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended on March 11, 1940, the Board duly notified the parties of their right within twenty (20) days from the date of the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order to file exceptions and to request oral argument before the Board, and°'gave notice that any party might within thirty (30) days after the date 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order file a brief with the Board On July 13, 1940,.Local No. 1007 filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and,Proposed Order and,, save as they are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Order, as set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the enture record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, General Furniture Manufacturing Company, is a Washington corporation with its principal office and place of business located in Seattle, Washington. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of household furniture, office desks, plywood, and ski.4 The principal raw materials used by the respondent are lumber, hardware, mirrors, glue, and sandpaper. Ap- proximately 75 per cent of these raw materials originate in States other than the State of Washington. During 1937 the respondent's gross sales amounted to approximately $525,000. Approximately 70 per cent of the respondent's furniture is shipped to points outside the State-of Washington, principally to the Western States, Canada, and Hawaii. If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Furniture Workers Union, Local 1007, is a labor organization, ad- mitting to its membership all production employees engaged in the manufacture of furniture in the general vicinity of Seattle, Washing- ton. Local No. 1007 was chartered in 1933 by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called the Brotherhood, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. On December 20, 1937, its charter was suspended and, since that date, it has been an unaffiliated labor organization. Furniture Workers Union, Local 2097, was chartered on Decem- ber 23, 1937, by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Local No. 2097 is a labor organization, admitting to its membership all pro- 4 On May 13, 1939, the respondent , having served copies thereof upon the other parties to this proceeding, lodged with the Board an affidavit of its president stating, in substance, that the respondent had "sold the machinery of its plants" and "is not now engaged in the business of manufacturing furniture and intends to never again engage in said business " We do not here pass upon the extent to which we would consider such an affidavit , in the absence of a motion to make it a part of the record, were it material and necessary to do so. We note merely that (1) "manufacturing furniture " is only a part of the respondent's business; and (2) the mere cessation of business by the respondent would not remove it from the purview of the Act. See Matter of Ray Nichols, Inc. and Local No 46-B, United Turniture, Carpet, Linoleum and Atoning 11"ork- ers Union , 15 N L. R B 846. GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 79 duction employees engaged in the manufacture of furniture in the general vicinity of Seattle, Washington. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES For several years prior to 1937 Local No. 1007 represented prac- tically all the production employees engaged in the manufacture of furniture in the general vicinity of Seattle, Washington, including employees of the respondent.' Each year the respondent, individually and through the Seattle Furniture Manufacturers Association, Inc., herein called the Association, entered into a contract with Local No. 1007 covering wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.' On March 25, 1937,' the Association, the respondent, and Local No. 1007 entered into a contract which was to terminate on September 30, 1938. At this time all the respondent's production employees were members of Local No. 1007. The contract provided, inter alia, as follows: Article V.' (2) In filling vacancies or hiring new help, the COMPANY agrees to give preference to members of the UNION. If UNION men who are satisfactory to the COMPANY are not available, the COMPANY may 'then hire whom they desire provided such employees join the UNION within thirty (30) days of being given employment. The respondent and Local No. 2097 contend that by Article V of the contract the respondent was obligated to require union member- ship of all its employees, those in its employ at the time the contract was entered into as well as those hired thereafter. The provision, on its face, however, appears to refer to only preferential hiring of new or' additional employees through the Union and does not appear 'to establish a closed shop as the respondent and Local No. 2097 contend However, clear and convincing proof was adduced at the second hear- ing that the parties mutually intended and agreed in the agreement reached by them on March 25, 1937, and which they supposed was expressed in the instrument then executed that the respondent require of all production workers then in its employ and thereafter union membership as a condition of employment. The president, secre- tary, and several members of the Association who constituted its negotiating committee testified that the committee believed that the E The Association was composed of about 15 furniture manufacturers engaged in business in Seattle, Washington . Negotiations by the manufacturers with Local No. 1007 were conducted through the Asso- ciation. When the terms of a contract were agreed upon, Local No 1007 , the Association , and its individual members, signed a master contract. An identical contract was then signed by Local No 1007 and each member of the Association. 6 Although the contract is dated March 24, 1937 , it was not signed by the parties until the following day. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contract established such a closed shop, and that they had so reported to the Association at the time the contract was negotiated. The president of the Association testified that at a meeting thereof there was a discussion about the effect of the contract and "In effect we all agreed that was nothing less but a closed shop agreement." Five members of the negotiating committee of Local No. 1007 testified in substance that they and the other members of Local No. 1007 had believed that the contract provided for a closed shop. This evidence as to the parties' agreement, and understanding is strongly corrobo- rated by the evidence as to the practice of the parties under the con- tract. Ray C. Anderson, president of the respondent, testified that after the contract was signed it was his understanding and practice to require all the respondent's employees to belong to Local No. 1007. August Nylin, general manager of the Pacific Chair Company, 'another member of the Association which had signed an identical contract with Local No. 1007, testified that the business agent of Local No. 1007 had informed him that Article V of the contract applied to old employees as well as new and that following the signing of the, con- tract he had been required to make three old employees join Local No. 1007. In addition, several' of the employees allegedly discrimi- nated against by the respondent admitted at the second hearing that it had been the practice of Local No. 1007 to enforce the contract as a closed-shop agreement. Until the suspension of Local No. 1007's charter neither the respondent, Local No. 1007, nor any of the re- spondent's employees at any time acted inconsistently with the exist- ence of an outstanding closed-shop agreement. We are convinced from the foregoing, and find, that all production workers employed by the respondent at the time the contract was entered into, including the five employees alleged to have been dis- criminated against, then knew and understood, that the contract required union membership as a condition of employment. We find that through mutual mistake or inadvertence of the parties the con- tract of March 24, 1937, failed to contain the respondent's promise to require union membership as a condition of employment by 'it,, a requirement known to exist by all interested parties. , Under these, circumstances the contract will be considered for the purposes of this, proceeding as a closed-shop contract, as if it expressly, set. forth the respondent's undertaking 7 7 See Matter of Ansley Radio Corporation and Local 1221 United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, C. I. 0 , 18 N. L R B 1028, where the Board said: , When through mutual inadvertence or mistake of the parties to a written collective agreement that agreement fails to express fully and accurately the intention of the parties , the Board in a proper case may consider and treat the written agreement as if it expressed what the parties intended it to provide and supposed it did. Effectuation of the purposes and policy of the Act requires that in such instances the determination of whether the respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice should not depend upon a fact which is contrary to the understanding of the employer and all persons concerned. GENERAL ' FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 81 ' On December 20, 1937, William L. Hutcheson, General President of the Brotherhood, instructed Howard Bennett, a general representative, to "lift" the charter of Local No. 1007, because it had been suspended by'the' Brotherhood', and to take over the monies and property of Local No. 1007 and hold them in trust to be delivered to a new local when he'should be notified to do so by the Brotherhood. Pursuant to these instructions Bennett took possession of the charter, monies, and other property of Local No. 1007 and subsequently turned them over to Local No. 2097 when it was chartered by the Brotherhood on December 23, 1937. Shortly thereafter all but 20 members of Local No. 1007, of a total membership of approximately 600, became mem- bers of Local No. 2097. Of the respondent's 187 production employees, all of whom had formerly been members of Local No. 1007, all but 5 became members of Local No. 2097. ' Thereafter, neither the respond- ent nor the Association had 'any negotiations with Local No. 1007 or communications therefrom. On December 23, 1937, Bennett wrote to Ray Anderson, the respond- ent's 'president, informing him of a change in the management of Local No. 1007 and that George Bartholomew was the new business 'agent'thereof: On January 20, 1938, Bartholomew wrote a letter to the respondent stating, inter alia, You have been previously advised of the permanent suspension and the non-existence of Furniture Workers Union Local 1007 by its parent body and of the reorganization of furniture workers into Local 2097. Your contract with the old union upon suspension was held in trust by the parent body for the benefit of the'new union. The Brotherhood has designated this union as the successor' to all the privileges and obligations of your contract. The letter further advised the respondent that Local No. 2097 demanded ,strict compliance with the closed-shop provision and that 'it was, prepared to supply all the competent help required by the respondent. On January 20 Bartholomew wrote another letter* to the respondent, apparently in response to an inquiry, advising the respondent that certain named individuals were not members of Local No. 2097. On January 21,;1938, S. P. \Mleadows,'on behalf of Hutcheson, wrote a letter to the respondent similar to Bartholomew's letter of January 20, 1938 On February 4, 1938, Bartholomew again wrote to the respondent advising. that Local, No. 2097 was the duly designated successor to Local No.' 1007 "arid is entitled to all title .ind benefit of 'existing agreements." During December and January there was a curtailment of the re- spondent's operations which necessitated -the temporary lay-off of 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD some of its employees. Ordinarily these employees would have been reinstated when operations warranted. However, on January 20, 1938, upon the respondent's increasing its operations and pursuant to the request of Local No. 2097, the respondent refused to reinstate three employees,8 who had been laid off temporarily, for th e reason that they were not members of Local No. 2097. On February 11, 1938, the respondent discharged two employees 9 for the same reason. Since that date all production employees of the respondent have been members of Local No. 2097. On March 15, 1938, Local No. 2097 and the respondent agreed to amend the contract by eliminating a provision for a wage increase on April 1, 1938.1) The complaint alleges that the respondent by discharging and re- fusing to reinstate the five employees hereinabove named, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. The respondent denies that its acts with respect to those employ- ees constituted unfair labor practices and contends that its actions in this respect were required by Article V of the contract, set forth in Section III above, since, according to the respondent, Article ,V pro- vided for a closed shop and after the suspension of the charter of Local No. 1007 and the formation and chartering of Local No. 2097, the respondent was obligated to employ members of Local No. 2097 only. The respondent, by discharging or refusing to reinstate its employees for the reason that they were not members of Local No. 2097, thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act unless its actions in this respect were required of it by a contract such as that permitted by the proviso to that section. .Section 8 (3) declares, inter alia, that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment, to encourage membership in any labor organization, provided, however, that . . . nothing in this Act . . . shall preclude an employer'-from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this Act as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization, is the ' reprc- sentative of the employees as provided in Section 9 (a), iii the appropriate collective bargaining uni6 covered by such agreement when made. 8 Stephen Russell , Joe Black, and Dimitri Jovick Y Roy Medford and Mons Lien is On December 13, 1938, the respondent filed with the Board a motion to add to the record an affidavit stating that on August 30, 1938, the Association served notice upon Local No 1007 and Local No. 2097 of Its intention to terminate the contract in the manner therein provided and that on November 7, 1938, the Association and Local No 2097 entered into a new contract , a copy of which was attached-to the affidavit. The respondent's motion to add to the record is hereby denied. . , GENERAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 83 -As 14ated above, we shall treat the contract of March 24, 1937, as 'though it expressed fully and accurately the intention of the parties and contained a closed shop provision. No contention is here made that the unit covered by said contract is or was inappropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. Nor is there any contention that either Local No. 1007 or Local No. 2097 was established, maintained, or assisted by any unfair labor practices." Nor is there any question that at the time it entered into the contract, Local No. 1007 reple- sented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. The record is clear that, following the events of December 1937, .Local No. 1007 no longer in fact represented a majority of the respond- cut's employees and made no attempt to bargain or otherwise corn- ,]inimicate with the respondent. Nor is there evidence that Local No. 1007 ever protested or appealed the Brotherhood's action in suspending its charter although' the constitution and laws of the Brotherhood provide for such an appeal.12 The objective result was that the Brotherhood suspended the charter of Local No. 1007 and substituted Local No. 2097 in its place and stead and it is apparent that the respondent, Local No. 2097, the Brotherhood, and a majority of the former members of Local No. 1007 recognized the substitution as one which invested Local No. 2097 with all the rights and privileges formerly enjoyed by Local No. 1007 under the contract. The absence of any communication to it from Local No. 1007 justified the respond- ent in recognizing such substitution, particularly in view of the fact that it bore the approval of the Brotherhood, the' organization which to the respondent's knowledge was the parent organization of Local No. 1007. The Brotherhood could have retained the charter of Local No. 1007 and insisted that the respondent perform its obligations according to the terms thereof. We do not believe that the substitu- tion of Local No. 2097 for Local No. 1,007 altered the respondent's obligations to the Brotherhood or to the successor of Local No. 1007.13 We find, in consequence, that the respondent was justified in relying upon the contract in discharging and refusing to reinstate nonmembers of Local No. 2097. Since the respondent's refusal to reinstate Stephen Russell, Joe Black, and Dimitri Jovick and discharge of Roy Medford and Mons Lien for the reason that they were not mem- bers of Local No. 2097 was privileged under the proviso clause of 11 There is, of course , implicit in the allegations of the complaint which we are here considering the addi- tional allegation that the respondent , by engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices , thereby assisted Local No 2097. However, the validity of the contract is to be determined as of a tune prior to the occurrence of I he unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint 12 "A Section 57 . any Local Union having any gi ievance, may appeal tot he I teneiat I'resideut is redress, subject to a furtlo'i appeal to the Uteneral Executive Board and a hual appeal to tie (tenei.d Convention . " 19 See Matter of T E Pearce Contracting and Stevedoring Company, Inc , and International Long6liorenien and lvarehousemen's Union, Local 2-5, 20 N L R: B 1061. 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD Section 8 (3) of the Act, we find that the, respon dent. has not engaged' in .unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8,(1) and,(3) of the Act and shall, accordingly, dismiss the complaint.,, . I,, Upon the basis of the above findings, of fact and upon the :entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. General Furniture Manufacturing Company is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. ' 2. Furniture Workers-Union, Local 1007, and Furniture Workers Union, Local 2097, are labor organizations, within the meaning, of Section 2 (5) of the Act. ' - . I I . , 11', 3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. ORDER - Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against the respondent, General Furniture Manufacturing Company, Seattle, Washington, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration, of the above Decision and Order.