Artco-Bell Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 41 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 41.
including`altplaces where notices to employees are custbrnarily posted. 'Reasonable..
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,`
defaced, or-covered by any other material.
(d)• Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region; in writing,.within 20, days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.ra
I It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as -it alleges that the
Respondent discriminatorily-terminated Robert K. Poage. .
22 In the event that this. Recommended Order Is 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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify ouremployees that: S
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by
discriminating in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of employment of any of our employees.
WE WILL offer to Harry R. Wolfe immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position; without prejudice to any seniority
or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against, him.
We WILL NOT ask any employee to'report about the- union organizational ac-
tivities of his coworkers or coercively, or otherwise unlawfully, interrogate our
employees concerning their union activities or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
. tions, to join or. assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively 'through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
COVINGTON MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above- named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
.. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,.
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. '
Employees -may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore , Maryland,. Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Artco-Bell Corporation and ' Millmens Local Union - No. 1751,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners ' of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1902. February 18, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 18,1963; Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his. Decision in the' above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
NLRB No.3:'
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondeiit had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take. certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner' s Decision . Thereafter, the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions' and briefs in
support thereof to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner.
'ORDER
The Board adopts as itt Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.
1 We .find , in agreement with the General Counsel , that the Respondent 's Plant Super
intendent H. J. Morris ' interrogation of employee James Klemann violated Section,
8(a) (1) of the Act. Although not adverted to by the Trial Examiner in discussing the
incident, there is evidence in the record that Superintendent Morris asked Klemann "who,
was pushing the Union , and said he thought David Ryden might have something to do.
with It." We also find, in agreement with the General Counsel , that President Hardegree's
speech to the employees on March 27, 1963, threatened employees with discharge for en
gaging in union or concerted activities and was violative of Section 8(a) (1).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 18 , 1963 , a charge was filed by the above -named labor organization.
On September 6, 1963 , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued his complaint and notice of hearing . The above-named Respondent's
answer was duly filed . On October 4, General Counsel issued an amendment to
the complaint and a new notice of hearing . The complaint , as amended , alleges
and the answer denies that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Temple, Texas, on October 14,
1963, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity
to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally , and to file briefs.
Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent.
Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint , upon which,
ruling was reserved at the close of the hearing , is made by the following findings,
conclusions , and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made , and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial.
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Artco-Bell Corporation is a Texas corporation , with principal office and place
of business in Temple, Texas , where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
office and school furniture.
ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 43
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint it shipped products valued
at more than $50,000 from its plant directly to States of the United States other
than Texas. During the same period it received goods valued at. more than
$50,000 directly from States other than Texas.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that the Respond-
ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE CHARGING UNION
Millmens Local Union No. 1751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR • LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and chief issues
The main issues raised by the complaint stem from the summary discharge of two
employees: Thomas A. Kirkham on May 31, and James Klemann on June 26, 1963.
Both dismissals occurred during a self-organizational campaign among the Re-
spondent's employees in which both Kirkham and Klemann assumed leading roles.
During the same period, the complaint also claims, two company officials en-
deavored to defeat the organizing efforts by unlawful interrogations and threats
of reprisals. The two management representatives concerned are R. V. Hardegree,
head of the company, and H. J. Morris, the plant superintendent.
There is no dispute that Hardegree vigorously opposed his employees' exercising
their lawful rights to be represented by the "Charging Union. There is ,dispute as to
whether, as a fact, management violated the Act in attaining its end.
B. The discharge of Kirkham
Kirkham, employed in March 1963, led the organizing movement among his
fellow employees in this small plant. (At peak season only about 50 employees
were on the payroll.) In April he discussed with other workers the possibilities
of organizing and later obtained authorization cards from the Charging Union.
Employee Klemann assisted him in getting signatures upon the cards.
On May 27, management assembled all employees. Both Hardegree and Morris
addressed them. According to the president's own testimony, "I did caution them
... of outsiders trying to interfere with the company's procedure of doing busi-
ness." According to the credible testimony of Klemann, Hardegree also declared
that there were "agitators who were trying to cause dissent in the Company" and
that the "Company knew who these agitators were and it would be best if they
just picked up their check that afternoon because . . . it might be embarrassing
if they came to work the next day." 1
Kirkham neither asked for his check nor quit. On Friday of that week, May 31,
he was summarily discharged by Morris, being told by the superintendent that it
was because he had griped about his wages, had "punched in" early, and had
smoked in a no-smoking area.
As a witness, Kirkham readily admitted having complained about his wages-
he had been employed at the bare minimum of $1.15 per hour required by law.
That his complaints carried merit, however, is indicated by the fact that he was
given two raises of 5 cents each during the 21 months of employment. That the
raises were deserved appears implicit in Hardegree's testimony to the effect that
he told the assembled employees on or about May 27, just before Kirkham's dis-
missal, that "no one had received raises other•than around in our routine procedure
of raising people as they progressed in their work."
As a witness the superintendent made no contention that the' complaint about
wages was a.cause of Kirkham's discharge. He contended that the employee was
fired because he did not comply with company rules. The two rules involved
were "no smoking" and. punchin?' in early. He testified that he "imagined" Kirk-
ham had violated the "no smoking" rule three or four times. Not until pressed
and led by his own counsel did the superintendent finally say, "Three that I know
,of definitely." The Trial Examiner' can place no reliance * upon Morris' "imagina-
tion" on this point, nor can he believe testimony elicited under the circumstance
,existing here.
I Hardegree admitted that at this meeting he said that "if any employee is unhappy
with his job or working conditions it would be best if he asked for his check and went to
:find other employment where he would be better satisfied."
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kirkham admitted-that after the--assembly of May 27, he. was - informed , of a
rule that smoking was to be limited to the rear of the building, but. stated credibly
'that he never; thereafter violated that rule. There is no evidence from any manage-
ment representative (his own foreman, Pechal, was not called as a witness) that he
-did violate the rule after May 27.
As to "punching in" early in the morning, Kirkham admitted that early in April
the superintendent had told him that he should not do so until after 7:45 in the
morning, but he denied credibly that he had ever been warned of discharge if he
did. As a witness Morris claimed that the employee had violated the rule about
punching the clock "about 40 times after he was told." Since Kirkham had been
working there only about 60 days, at the time of his discharge, it would appear
that management had effectively condoned his punching in early, if Morris' un-
supported testimony as to the number of-times is to be credited.
In short, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that these minor derelictions,
if any, were seized upon. by management as pretexts for the dismissal of this em-
ployee, while the real reason was to discourage union membership and activity.
No reasonable employer would give an employee two raises in as many months if
he were seriously violating plant rules., It is concluded and found that this 'un-
lawful discharge, and Hardegree's warning, above-described, that it would be
better for "agitators" to quit, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act a
C. The discharge of Klemann
At the time of the hearing James H. Klemann was serving in the United States
Air Force. He was hired by the Respondent in the spring of 1962 to finish the
Company's wood products at a pay rate of $1.25 per hour. There is no dispute
as to the fact that on June 26, 1963, 2 days, before a Board-conducted election at
the plant, he was summarily and constructively discharged by Hardegree because
he declined to attach his signature to a document addressed "To Our Employees"
and which reads as follows:
We hope you plan to vote in the election Friday. We hope you plan to vote
"No." Every man will be free to vote the way he chooses. Threats or in-
timidation of any kind will not be tolerated.
Your Company hopes that it has given you the true facts and that you will
do your own thinking and make your own choice.
"No man can serve two Masters"-Matthew 6:24.
LOYALTY
"If you work for a.man in heavens name work for him. Speak well of him;
stand by him and stand by the institution he represents. An ounce of loyalty
is worth more than -a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn and
eternally disparage-hand him back his. keys and when you are on the, outside
damn him as you please."
Our greatest hope is that we have lived together and worked together in such
a way as to earn your confidence and respect.
Your continued loyalty to your Company is deeply appreciated.
According to Klemann's' credible testimony, which is corroborated by Hardegree
himself, when he saw the "Vote no" in the letter addressed to his fellow employees
he declined to sign the document. The president thereupon told him he had two
choices, he could quit or be fired. "He said if I was fired that it would be a black
mark on my record," Klemann-testified, "and I would probably. have trouble getting
another job. He said if I quit there would be no hard feelings." Hardegree added
that "as a supervisor I was not covered by the National Labor Relations Act." Upon
this Klemann told him that "they didn't leave me any choice but to quit." He was
given his final check and since then has not been offered reinstatement.
y'The Trial Examiner admitted in evidence four documents entitled "Notice of Disci-
plinary Action" relating to. this employee. The Trial Examiner has grave doubt that any
of them , were prepared until after the discharge. Each bears Morris' signature. He ad-
mitted as a witness that be "wrote" them up "because the foreman come to him," and
that none of them were ever shown to Kirkham . As noted , the foreman himself was not
.called, as a witness.. .
ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 45
Nor is there any marked dispute that management was well aware of the fact that
Klemann for several weeks before his discharge had assisted in organizing among his
fellow employees. Shortly after management's assembly of the employees on
May 27, Superintendent Morris asked Klemann if he had heard about this "union
mess." Klemann admitted to him that he was in favor of a union. Morris declared
that he was disappointed in him, and that a union was the next thing to "Commu-
nism ." The superintendent further lectured him by stating that "he thought my
parents had raised me to do what was right." Later the same day Morris called him
into the office, told Klemann for the first time -that he was a supervisor, and was
subject to immediate discharge because of his union activities.
Still later the same day Morris summoned him to a supervisor' s meeting . Counsel
for the Respondent in this case and management representatives were present. The
attorney told them of a certification petition filed by the Union and then proceeded
to vilify the organization by referring to "a crooked land deal," to a "scandal involv-
ing it," and to "criminal charges against the president of the Union." The attorney
further told the foremen present that they were "important in this upcoming elec-
tion" because they worked closely with the employees, and advised them to repeat
to employees what he had said about the Union. When one foreman raised a ques-
tion about making unlawful remarks to employees, the lawyer replied that it would
"just be the foreman's word against the employee's," and that he would rather the
foreman said "something out of line" than say nothing at all.
The lawyer then asked if there was anyone present who was not sure of his su-
pervisory status. Klemann replied that he was not sure, since that day was the first
he had been told that he was a supervisor. The attorney asked' him if he had the
right to hire or fire or effectively recommend hiring or firing. He said he had no such
authority. The superintendent then interrupted to say that when -he had hired
Klemann it was with the understanding that he "was to run the finishing room or
supervise it." 3
A week or so later Morris again called Klemann into his office and demanded to
know if he was transmitting to employees what the attorney had suggested. Klemann
agreed that he was. Morris then said that he knew he was "talking for the Union,"
and instructed him not to do so on "company time," which he said included both
morning and afternoon break periods.
It is the Respondent's contention that Klemann was a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act and that it had a right to discharge him for engaging in "activities
in behalf of a union"-according to its brief.- No management representative claimed
at-the hearing that Klemann was discharged, or forced to quit, for engaging in ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union. It is clear, from Hardegree's own admissions, that
the sole issue was Klemann's disinclination to engage in antiunion activities, by attach-
ing his name to the above-quoted letter for distribution to his fellow employees.
The Trial Examiner believes that it is unnecessary here to pass upon the question
as to whether' or not the Act protects a sunervisor within the meaning of the Act
when he declines to assist in conduct herein described.
Credible evidence establishes firmly, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, that
Klemann was not in fact a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. He neither
possessed , nor at any time during his employment exercised, the authority defined by
the Act as necessary to qualify him as a management representative 'oragent.
It is true that Morris hired him as an experienced hand in wood finishing, having
worked with him 'at another plant. And it is equally true that he did show em-
ployees, assigned to this department by Morris. how to perform certain tasks if they
were unfamiliar with the work. But it is equally clear that the only actual authority
he possessed or exercised stemmed' from his experience, not from management
prerogative. He frequently worked alone, and (throughout his employment) had
no emnlovee regularly assigned to him or to his department.. Often, when work in
the finishing room was slack, Klemann was sent into other departments to perform
whatever tasks were available. He had no control over either the nature or amrnmt
of work to be done in the department or the number or identity of employees that
might be sent in to help out during the busy season-which occupied only about 3
months of the year. And whatever instructions he may have given were of a routine
nature . not the result of his independent judgment.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, Klemann's work, duties,, and supervisory
authority were no more than those customarily, in plants where such classifications are
O The quotations are from Klemann 's credible testimony . The attorney did. not testify.
-46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintained, ascribed to "leadmen ." And in its most recent decision relating to
such leadmen ,4 the Board has determined that individuals employed in a capacity
very similar to that of Klemann are not supervisors as defined by the Act.
In short , Klemann was an employee within the meaning of the Act and possessed
all rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act.
It is concluded and found that Klemann was constructively discharged on June 26,
1963 , to discourage union membership and activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3),
.and because he refused to subscribe to the Respondent 's antiunion message to his
fellow employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
D. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
Also on May 27, the day Hardegree and Morris assembled the . employees as
-described above, Morris called employee Arnold into his office ,- told him that he
had heard rumors to the effect that he was "pushing " the Union , and wanted to
know where he "stood ." He further told the employee that he was "next" under
the foreman and had a good chance for advancement.5
Such interrogation , in the light of the unlawful discharges found herein , and the
.thinly veiled promise of benefit both constituted , in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner, interference , restraint , and coercion of employees in the exercise of
.rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the" operations of the 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial
Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative
:action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a nature
which violates the policies of the Act , it will be recommended that it cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer Thomas A. Kirkham and James
Klemann immediate and full reinstatement of their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a ' sum of money
equal to that he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the dis-
crimination to the date of offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during said
"period . The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with
Board formula set out in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 , and with
interest thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Millmens Local Union No. 1751, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
.Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against employees , as found herein , to discourage member-
ship ' in the activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization , the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair , labor practices within the meaning
Of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining,- and coercing employees in the exercise, of
Tights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the ' meaning of Section 8(a) (1)• of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within " the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4 Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268.
5 The quotations are from Arnold 's credible testimony.
ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION 47
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent , Artco-Bell Corporation,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 6
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Millmens Local Union No. 1751, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, . or in any other
labor organization of its employees , by discharging, refusing to reinstate , laying
off, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to, hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Promising benefits to employees to discourage union membership and
activity.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning union membership and activities in a
manner violative of Section 8 (a) ( I ) of the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Thomas a Kirkham and James Klemann immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and make them whole
or any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amounts of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under terms of this
Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Temple, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Sixteenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision , what steps it has taken to comply
herewith.8
a In the event thnt this 'Recommended Order be adopted by the board , the following
paragraph-shall be substituted for the above:
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as emended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , Artco-Bell Corporation , Its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
51n the event that this Recommended Order be 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 Deci-
sion and Order."
s In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the 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 conduct our labor relations in compliance with the
National Labor Relations Act, we notify you that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage you from being members . of Millmens'
Local Union No. 1751 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, or any other union.
744-070-05-vol. 146-5
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT promise you benefits to stay out of any union.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act, to join a union of your own choice , or not to engage in any union
activities.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Thomas A. Kirkham and James Klemann,
and will give them backpay from the time of their discharge.
ARTCO-BELL CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948 , as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, Meacham Building , 110 West Fifth Street , Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No.
Edison 5-4211 , Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
The Celotex Corporation and Oil , Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers International Union , Local 4-179, AFL-CIO . Case No.
15-CA-f2065. February 00, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 13, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (5) and (1) was based in part on its cancellation of the em-
ployees' existing Metropolitan health insurance. The Respondent at-
tributed the cancellation to the fact that the same coverage would be
provided under the new, all-inclusive insurance package program ar-
146 NLRB No. 8.