Belinda Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 7, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 646 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BELINDA HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 11 - CA-486. August 7, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On May 27, 1953, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find- ing that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as setforth in a copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Gen- eral Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Houston, Styles, and Peterson] . 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, the conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification: In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the com- plaint, we rely solely on the evidence in the record, which the Trial Examiner credited, that during the summer of 1952 there were 2 knitting machines on the second shift which were not in operation; that General Manager Blanchard planned to in- crease operations on the second shift as soon as business picked up; that he had not intended that more than 1 knitter be hired and had instructed Plant Superintendent Isley to that effect but that Isley, misinterpreting Blanchard's instructions, had put on 2 knitters instead of 1 knitter; that on the morning of August 13, 1952, Blanchard went into the knitting mill and observed 2 new knitters; and that he thereupon stated to Isley that he had too many knitters and for him to keep the first one hired and let the one hired last go; and that, under these cir- cumstances, Montgomery being the last one hired was dis- charged.' Accordingly, we conclude that Montgomery was dis- charged and refused reinstatement because of a misunder- standing between the general manager and the plant superin- tendent at the time he was hired, and not for discriminatory reasons, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 1The Trial Examiner found that Blanchard had no knowledge of Montgomery's union activ- ities at his prior place of employment. 106 NLRB No. 112. BELINDA HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE 647 Upon duly filed charges by the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) issued a complaint dated February 2, 1953, against the Belinda Hosiery Mills, Incorporated. herein called the Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the Re- spondent, by its officers, agents, and supervisors, discharged and/or laid off employee James W Montgomery on August 13, 1952, and has at all times since said date failed and refused to reinstate said employee to his former or substantially equivalent position in order to dis- courage membership in the Union or a labor organization and/or because said employee had engaged in and continues to engage in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Further, by all its acts and conduct the Respondent did interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exerciseof rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and did thereby engage in and is hereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, subsection (A) (1) of the Act. Also the Respondent, by its acts and conduct did discourage and is discouraging membership in a labor organization by discrimina- tion in regard to hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment, and did thereby engage in and is thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, subsection (A) (3) of the Act. In its answer the Respondent avers that it does not sell, transport, or deliver any of its products-(to wit, ladies' hosiery) outside theStateof North Carolina or otherwise in interstate commerce it being the Respondent ' s present practice and its practice at all times material herein to sell its entireproducts toB& L Hosiery Company, Burlington, North Carolina, which in turn sells and ships such products as well as the products of other hosiery mills, in inter- state commerce. Respondent admits that the products which it sells to the B & L Hosiery Company at the present time and at all times material herein have a total value of more than $ 25,000 annually. Respondent's answer, filed February 9, 1953, denied the allegations of the complaint relating to unfair labor practices but affirmatively averred that on August 13, 1952, it terminated the employment of James W. Montgomery and has since said date failed and re- fused to reemploy him because of a misunderstanding between the general manager and plant superintendent of Respondent in respect to the number of additional employees which Re- spondent intended and desired to employ to commence work on or about August 13, 1952, upon the type of job upon which said Montgomery commenced work for the Respondent on August 13, 1952, and when the general manager of Respondent learned on August 13, 1952 (which was the first and only day upon which said Montgomery worked for the Respondent) that the said misunderstanding had occurred , Respondent ' s general manager instructed the plant superin- tendent to terminate and he did terminate, Montgomery's employment as of the end of the work day on August 13, 1952. Further, although Respondent has employed persons since August 13, 1952, to perform work of the nature of that performed by the said Montgomery on August 13, 1952, Respondent has not offered reemployment to said Montgomery since Re- spondent observed on August 13, 1952, that certain fingers on the hand of said Montgomery were missing, which fact renders him incapable of performing the duties of the job in the manner and with the degree of efficiency which the Respondent does and would reasonably ex- pect the same to be performed . Further, Respondent avers that its termination of the em- ployment of said Montgomery and its failure to offer him reemployment were not and are not in any manner connected with, or induced or motivated by, any union or labor organization membership or any union or labor organization activities of said Montgomery , and Respondent expressly avers that its acts concerning said Montgomery were not in any manner designed or intended to discourage union membership in any union or labor organization or to interfere in any way with any rights conferred and protected by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the under- signed Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT L THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of State of North Carolina, having its principal place of business in Graham, in the State of North Carolina, hereinafter called the Graham plant, where it is now and has been at all times material herein, continuously engaged in the manu- facture of hosiery Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations at its Graham plant causes and had continuously caused a substantial amount of equipment, supplies, and raw materials, of a value of more than $50,000, annually to be purchased, transported and delivered in interstate commerce from and through the States of the United States, other than the State of North Carolina to its Graham plant, and causes and continuously caused a substantial amount of its products of a value of more than $50,000, annually to be sold, trans- ported, and delivered in interstate commerce to and through States of the United States, other than the State of North Carolina from its Graham plant. It is therefore concluded and found that the Respondent is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Graham, North Carolina, on February 24, 1953, before John C. Fischer, the undersigned Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at the hearing, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, to introduce evidence, to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs. Motions were made by Respondent at the end of the General Counsel's case-in-chief and renewed at the end of the hearing to dismiss the entire complaint on the grounds that the General Counsel had not made out a case against the Respondent. 1 cling was reserved and is disposed of as appears herein. Motions made by the General Counsel at the end of the entire case, to con- form the pleadings to the proof with regard to minor variances and to correct the transcript were granted Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary statement and background of the issues This case arose by reason of the discharge of and refusal to reinstate by the Respondent, James W. Montgomery, Jr , a young man with a mutilated left hand, who worked less than 1 full day at Respondent's Graham hosiery mill The reason or motivating cause for Mont- gomery's discharge is the main issue to be resolved in this decision As recited in the plead- ings or as raised by the evidence, there are three possible explanations- -or a combination of these explanations- -which must account for the actions of Respondent's officials Montgomery was fired and refused reinstatement: (a) Because of his union propensities and activities, (b) because of a misunderstanding between the general manager and the plant superintendent at the time he was hired; or (c) because he was a crippled worker and a potential industrial liability. In any event, the burden is on the Government to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent is guilty of unfair labor practices as charged. On August 11, 1952, James W Montgomery came to the Respondent's Belinda Mill and asked for a job stating that he had formerly been employed as a knitter at the nearby Burling- ton Mills He had previous, but limited experience at May Hosiery Mill, but had never been on production It appears that he had been advised that there was an opening at the Belinda Mills by his friend, Robert Gaurley, a then employee of Belinda Mills. He talked to and left his telephone number with Respondent's Superintendent G. C. Isley and was called on August 12 by Isley to report for duty'on the next day He commenced work at 7 a. m, of the morning of the 13th on a "manual welt-turning" hosiery knitting machine. It appears that the Respond- ent's hosiery knitting machines are known as Reading-45 gauge "manual welt-turning" ma- BELINDA HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 649 chines as distinguished from the modem "automatic welt-turning" machines which are in general use today. It is understood that manual welt-turning is today considered almost an antiquated operation . From a demonstration given in the hearing room of a "manual welt- turning operation ," the best description of, or analogy that I could draw would be that the operation consists of grasping--with the thumbs and index fingers at each end --an iron bar about 14 Inches long and then inserting (called "booking up") this "welt bar" into a machine where a number of needles with silk thread attached mesh and consummate the knitting process. (Best described . a "welt bar " resembles an ordinary hair comb containing some 200 fine steel teeth). At a certain point, it becomes necessary to lift the welt bar out with the partially knitted stocking clinging to it , turn it around and insert it in the opposite direction from which it had formerly been operating. The machinery and needles are moving at,high speed and considerable dexterity and coordination would appear to be required of an operator of this old-style type of machine. i Suffice it to say, the Respondent's superintendent, G. C. Isley, put Montgomery to work at one of the 6 machines . On the machine on which Montgomery worked, there were 24 of these welt bars which had to be turned --each one knitting a separate stocking. Isley assigned Montgomery to a machine close by a regular knitter , Mr. Webster, who was operating a similar machine and would be his instructor . It appears probable that Isley, who "watched him off and on that morning " first noticed that Montgomery had two missing fingers--an Index finger and second finger missing of the left hand--while he was operating this machine. Whether Isley was previously aware of, or made the discovery of the missing fingers at 9:00, 10:00, or 11:00 a. m. is not fundamental , because I credit as a demonstrated fact Superintendent Isley's statement "I laid him off because he was the last man hired and he was also handicapped." Isley was never shaken from his contention that "he was laid off because he was the last man hired , plus the bad fingers, missing fingers." (Underscoring supplied.) As stated before, the crux of this case lies in the resolution of the reason or reasons for which he was discharged . Stated succinctly , the General Counsel predicates his case on the plea of an antiunion discriminatory discharge and refusal to reinstate which unfair labor charge hinges on alleged conversations which Montgomery claims took place between Isley and himself when Isley , "around 11 :00 o'clock ," came to him to get certain social -security information for company use involving himself and dependents , and on statements Montgomery allegedly made at 3 o'clock when Isleydischarged him. At that time , according to Montgomery the following colloquy took place: "After I signed the slip I told Mr. Isley, I said , I like this place, I think it is going to be a nice place to work and I hope you people here don't do me like they did me at Atsco Hosiery, and that I had been fired from the Company because of belonging to a Union; Mr . Isley then said, "that doesn 't make any difference about the Union, we don't fire people down here because they belong to a Union," and I walked back to my machine." Within a half an hour after this alleged conversation , according to Montgomery: "Mr. Blanchard , Respondents general manager, came in and came to the end of I will say No. 4 machine in the alley of these two knitters , and stood there and stared at me, and while he was staring I looked back at him." General Manager Blanchard then retreated out of earshot and engaged in a short conversation with Superintendent Isley. About 3 o'clock in the after- noon, Isley came up to the machine at which Montgomery was working and told him that his services were no longer needed; and he was paid up and discharged , although his day was not over until 4 o'clock. Montgomery testified in this connection : "I then told Mr. Isley since you are firing me I know the reason , it is on account of the Union, that is exactly what the reason is ." He also testified that Isley "went on to explain the fact that they had a fixer there that was supposed to be knitting and fixing (machines ) too--and Mr. Blanchard was the man said I was to be fired." The General Counsel charges bad faith on the part of Superintendent Isley and challenges his veracity because he gave a detailed buterroneous affidavit on November 6, to the National i One description of the welt operating procedure is as follows : "When you start your stocking, you use your thumb, index and middle finger of both hands to place your bar in the needle that is called hooking up part of it and after you run your welt out flat and knit this portion of the stocking you turn the welt, use your thumb , index and middle finger of each hand to pull the flat welt back on the bar hooks and then you use your fingers to set it up on the needle. The bar is set up on needles , each of the stitches fit, goes down on a needle and doubles the welt and then the bar is pulled up and taken off those stitches, and then the welt is doubled up at the top and one starts right out on knitting." 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Labor Relations Board field examiner without properly checking the records. The statements given which were in error were that another knitter , by the name of Coy Vance Graves, had been previously hired and reported for duty on the same day as Montgomery . In truth and fact, it was not Coy Vance Graves but one James Greeson who had been hired and who reported, not the day on which Montgomery reported , but 2 days before. Three months later Isley wrote General Counsel Goldman a letter on February 2, 1953, which contained the same erroneous account of Graves ' hiring. Admitting he had no records at hand, and even though 3 months had elapsed since the events occurred , nevertheless Isley's negligence in ascertaining the facts shows irresponsibility which cannot be lightly condoned, but does not necessarily destroy him or a witness. In my opinion, be was an average witness under the particular and peculiar circumstances of this case. Four other witnesses testified in this case : Robert Gaurley and Francis B. Ertel on behalf of the General Counsel and Rufus T. Blanchard and Charlie Webster on behalf of the Re- spondent . Gaurley, a friend of Montgomery 's, was employed by the Respondent during the month of August and was the one responsible for bringing Montgomery to the attention of the Respondent 's superintendent. According to Gaurley 's testimony , Superintendent Isley stated that he needed 2 or 3 knitters and he , Gaurley, referred James Montgomery to Isley to fill up one of the machines on the second shift. Gaurley stated that he recommended Montgomery as a good knitter but stated "he has a bad hand." In response to Isley 's suggestion , Gaurley called Montgomery and told him that there was a job open and he should come down and see Isley and get the job, which he did. Upon finding out that Montgomery was not at work the next day, he went to Isley and asked where Montgomery was. Gaurley testified : "the answer was that he was gone and sorter smiled, and I said, did he quit. He gave me no answer and turned and walked off." The most natural , human reaction would be one of disappointment to Gaurley that his crippled friend whom he had recommended to his boss had to be discharged-- regardless of the reason. Francis B. Ertel appearing for and representing American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL, was called by the General Counsel. He stated that he became a hosiery knitter some- time during October 1914 and worked at his trade (20} years) with exception of time (2'v years) in the Armed Forces during World War I up until the middle of 1937 when he became a rep- resentative of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers. He said that all of his experience was with manual welt turning knitting machines . Specifically, Ertel stated that he had worked with two knitters , presumably at Nolde Amborst Co. in Reading , Pennsylvania , who had crippled hands , and that within the past week he had observed a knitter, obviously an expert knitter who had overcome his handicap, operating a 26 section , 45 gauge manual welt turning machine whose hand was worse mutilated than was that of Montgomery . In arguing that a man suffering from the same mutilation of his hand as Montgomery , Ertel stated, "I have worked with at least two knitters over a period of approximately 18 years that had practically the same deformity that Montgomery had." This statement of Mr. Ertel is eloquent evidence that most persons physically handicapped if given a chance, can triumph over their disabilities and become valuable and expert employees , regardless of whether the disability was the result of a gunshot wound received in action while defending our country , was occasioned by an in- dustrial accident in a war plant, was incident to malignant illness or is a congenital defect. Unfortunately for men like Montgomery, this concept is not universally held in our society. The next witness called by the Respondent , and whose testimony I credit completely, was Charlie Webster who stated that he had been employed at the Belinda Hosiery Mills since it was organized in 1950, and was working on machine number 5 to which Montgomery was as- signed on the day he reported for work. He worked with him until Montgomery was discharged at 3 o'clock . He testified that he saw that Montgomery could not make any time in turning welts, that Montgomery had 2 fingers missing and "he could not hold the bars up." Webster testified that he turned 19 or 20 welts while Montgomery was turning 4 or 5. Further , it should be noted that Montgomery himself testified that he had never had a regular job on a machine as a welt turner except for 3 training days at the Atsco Mill . Obviously, he was not the good knitter as recommended by his friend, Gaurley. The last witness called by the Respondent was Rufus T. Blanchard , the general manager of Belinda Hosiery Mills . Blanchard's credited testimony is that during the summer of 1952 there were two knitting machines on the second shift which were not in operation during the summer , and during August 1952. His explanation of these idle machines was that "business was bad, we didn't care whether we had production or not; we were just giving the knitters that were there and had been there something to do, during the summer months." His plan BELINDA HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 651 was to start up the second shift as soon as business picked up. His explanation of this situa- tion was that on the morning of the 13th he went into the knitting mill and observed two new knitters whom he had never seen before. Certainly he did see one who did not meet with his approbation as he stared at the mangle-handed Montgomery. He stated that he told Isley that: "it looks like you have made a mistake, you have one too many knitters, and I didn't intend to put on all those knitters; I intended to run with the fixer for the time being, and he said what do you want me to do, and Isaid, there ain't much you can do, I would let him stay for the rest of the day and--let the one you hired first stay here and the one you hired last, let him go, and that is the procedure we always went by."2 I am convinced that Mr. Blanchard was moti- vated by an unwillingness to employ a potential second or subsequent injury hazard, especially after watching him ineptly turn welts. Blanchard specifically denied knowing anything about Montgomery's union activities or connections. Under the circumstances, whether he did or not know is immaterial . Blanchard further testified that he was in the office of the attorney for the Respondent at the time Isley made the written statement to Field Examiner Wahlberg. He also said that the Belinda plant owner, a Mr. Lindley, was present and that they had no records whatsoever , and that this statement was "all from memory." In response to Re- spondent attorney's question as to the first time that Isley checked the company records with respect to the date of Montgomery's employment, Blanchard answered Mr. Hudgins by saying: "last week when you came down here and said ' let's get this case prepared,' and we went and got the records and there they were wide open for us to see." With reference to the letter, General Counsel's Exhibit #2, which Isley sent to Mr. Goldman the witness testi- fied that this letter was presented to him for approval sometime after Christmas . The belated conversation anent this letter occurred at the Belinda plant, but the personnel records were kept at the Lindley Hosiery Mill in Burlington, approximately 2 miles from the Belinda plant. I believe, as Blanchard testified , that he really discovered the facts during the preparation of the case. Concluding Discussion Thus we have these versions to reconcile: (a) Crippled Montgomery had previously been involved in an unfair labor practice charge with the Atsco Mills in a similar situation to this one. He contended there as here, that he was fired after 3 days because of his union activities . His attempt to lodge a charge of an un- fair discrimination; failed in prosecution for the reason that it was shown that the Company had no knowledge of his union connections and activities--which knowledge is a necessary element in such an indictment. The evidence shows that Montgomery incurred his disability in June 1944. The incurrence of his injury, perhaps properly, was not developed. It is a matter of common knowledge that the vast majority of the visibly physically handicapped persons carry a heavy psychic burden or load. It has been, however, well demonstrated over the years , and especially since World War II that the "mutiles ," either battle or industrial casualties , desire more than any other thing, only the opportunity to demonstrate that they are ready , willing, and able to perform well a multitude of tasks in business , industry, agriculture , the trades , and professions . In this connection, it is estimated that there are 2 million handicapped Americans who can be added to the labor force, if properly placed, through rehabilitation processes. Based on my observation of Montgomery on the stand, and of the demonstration that he gave in handling a welt bar, and considering the dexterity demanded of such a celeritous operation , it seemed apparent to me that he had chosen too late, an occupation perhaps too difficult for him to master, and certainly one in which he presented himself to his prospective employer as a classical prospect for Second Injury Fund benefits under the North Carolina statutes. I am convinced, and I hold, that if Montgomery did make the remarks to Isley about being fired "because of belonging to a union ," it was a self-serving declaration calculated and contemplated to lay a foundation for another charge of unfair labor practice, this time against the Respondent. (b) The defense of the Respondent with reference to the discharge and refusal to reinstate is borne out by the evidence which shows that "he (Montgomery) was the last man hired and 2Isley's credited testimony was that Montgomery was not to begin work as a regular em- ployee on the second shift , beginning at 4 o'clock , until he had learned to operate the changes on the machine. 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he was also handicapped." I accept as valid, and certainly as entirely likely, the fact that there was a misunderstanding between General Manager Blanchard and Superintendent Isley as to when and how many knitters Isleyshould put on. After seeing Mr..Blanchard and hearing him testify on the stand, there was no doubt in my mind that he is the type of executive who would personally make all the final decisions, especially in a small plant of the Belinda kind--and would expect uniform production from every employee in the plant without regard to union or nonunion affiliations. Montgomery not only constituted an industrial liability, but would likely never measure up to the production standard. I hold, for these reasons, that Blanchard directed Isley to discharge and not reinstate Montgomery, and to assign the ex- planation of the misunderstanding. There being no union motive or bias involved, I hold that the Respondent officials acted within their rights under the law. (c) As above recited. Mr. Ertel's testimony was that he had worked for 18 years with 2 fellow employees with deformities similar to Montgomery who were competent knitters on welt-bar machines, and had observed 1 knitter operating a welt-turning machine whose hand was worse mutilated than Montgomery's. Ertel's straightforward recitation of the 18 years satisfactory service of these 2 men with 1 company, and the accomplishment of the worse crippled man, distinguishes them from the neophyte Montgomery, who certainly did not receive his injury while working for Respondent. Perhaps no one better understands the reluctance of employers to hire physically handicapped persons who have incurred in- juries or are suffering from occupational diseases than does a man with the background of Mr. Ertel. To encourage industry to hire such persons, many States, including North Caro- lina3 have enacted a "Second Injury Law" designed to limit the liability of the employer who hires physically handicapped persons. Manyemployers do not fully understand these laws. In light of the evidence set forth and the conclusions therefrom drawn I am of the opinion that the Respondent Belinda Hosiery Mills, Incorporated did not discriminatorily discharge and refuse to reinstate James W. Montgomery within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, nor did the Respondent interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices in the discharge of and refusal to reinstate James W. Montgomery. £Recommendations omitted from publication.] 3Laws of 1929, chapter 120 as amended ; Gen. stats . (NC) Ch . 97 sec . 35. See also: "The Presidents National Committee to Employ the Physically Handicapped." SOERENS MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation and PAUL RADEMACHER, CLARENCE CARLSON, and FRANKLIN A. HEADSON and UNITED AUTOMOBILE SALESMENS' LOCAL 174, UNITED OPTICAL AND INSTRUMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO SOERENS MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation and UNITED AU- TOMOBILE SALESMENS' LOCAL 174, UNITED OPTICAL AND INSTRUMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-1 021 and 13 -CA-1107. August 7, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On May 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor 106 NLRB No. 113.