Braswell Motor Freight Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1151 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1151
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES and LOCAL UNION No. 968, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and UNION OF TRANSPORTATION
EMPLOYEES , PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Case No. 39-CA-163. De-
cember 19,1952
Decision and Order
On May 7, 1952, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Union also filed
exceptions.
The Board I 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.2 The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.3
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
2 The Respondent contends in its brief that the Trial Examiner erred in not granting its
motion to dismiss the complaint , which motion alleged , inter alia, the following:
(1) The charge was filed by an attorney for the Union , who did not swear to the charge
or execute it in the manner required by Section 102 11 of the Board 's Rules and Regula-
tions . However , examination of the charge shows that it was properly executed.
(2) The attorney who filed the charge (a) was not a member of the Union or an em-
ployee of the Respondent , and (b ) had not filed with the Board the affidavit required by
Section 9 (h), of the Act. As to (a), the Act does not preclude the filing of charges by
persons other than union members or employees . As to ( b), the case of N. L . R. B. v.
Alside, Inc , 192 F. 2d 678 ( C. A. 6), cited by the Respondent , is not applicable here. The
court there held that the Board had no Jurisdiction to entertain a charge filed on behalf
of a labor organization which itself had not complied with Section 9 (h) of the Act. That
is not the case here , as we are administratively satisfied , and the Respondent does not deny,
that the Union has in fact been in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of
the Act at all material times.
(3) The complaint is barred by the 6-month period of limitations in Section 10 (b) of
the Act, as it alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices on a date
more than 6 months before the date the charge was filed and served on the Respondent.
The charge was filed on November 2, 1950 , and served upon the Respondent the next day.
However , the Respondent 's conduct on which we, in agreement with the Trial Exam-
iner, base our findings of unfair labor practices occurred within the 6-month period.
Although the Intermediate Report refers to events occurring prior to that period, we do
not base our unfair labor practice findings on these events but, like the Trial Examiner,
consider them only as background . See Sun Oil Co., 89 NLRB 833.
+ The Respondent 's request for oral argument 19 denied, as the record , including the ex-
ceptions and brief , in our opinion , adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of
the parties.
101 NLRB No. 195.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Remedy
We adopt the recommendation of the Trial Examiner requiring the
Respondent to reimburse each employee for the amount of checked-off
fees and dues. We do so because we are satisfied upon the entire
record, and find, that the employees were coerced by the Respondent
to authorize it to deduct such fees and dues from their wages. Such
coercion stems from the following circumstances :
The record shows that employees who joined the UTE were required,
as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership, to authorize
the Respondent to deduct initiation fees and dues. As the employees
were coerced into joining the UTE by Respondent's unlawful conduct,
detailed in the Intermediate Report, it is apparent, and we find under
these circumstances that the check-off authorizations signed by the
employees did not reflect their uncoerced desires. Under the fore-
going circumstances, reimbursement, as recommended by the Trial
Examiner, is necessary, in our opinion, to effectuate the policies of
the Act
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Braswell Motor Freight Lines, El
Paso, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Union
of Transportation Employees, or the formation or administration of
any other labor organization, and from contributing support to Union
of Transportation Employees, or to any other labor organization, and
from otherwise interfering with the representation of its employees
through a labor organization of their own choosing.
(b) Recognizing Union of Transportation Employees, or any suc-
cessor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the
purposes of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment.
(c) Giving effect to the collective bargaining agreement, dated
February 17, 1951, between the Respondent and Union of Transporta-
tion Employees or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof,
or any other contract or agreement between the Respondent and the
said labor organization which may now be in force.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
A See Meyer cE Welch, Incorporated, 91 NLRB 1102.
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1153
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Union of Transportation Em-
ployees as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and completely disestablish said organization as such
representative.
(b) Reimburse each employee whose initiation fees and member-
ship dues in Union of Transportation Employees were checked off
for the amounts thus deducted from his wages since June 4, 1950, and
paid over to Union of Transportation Employees, less any amount
already returned to such employee.
(c) Post at all its operating offices, shops, and terminals in Texas,
copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked
"Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily 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 Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
R This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner ," the words "A Decision and Order ." If this Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals the notice shall be further amended by sub-
stituting for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " in the caption , the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named
Company, herein called the Respondent, a hearing involving allegations of unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, was held in El
Paso, Texas, on March 12, 13, and 14, 1952, before the undersigned Trial
Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent :
(1) In May 1950, initiated and sponsored and since then has assisted, dominated,
and contributed support to the Union of Transportation Employees, herein called
UTE; (2) in May 1950, and since then, has threatened and warned its employees
to refrain from assisting Local Union No. 968, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein
called Teamsters ; (3) in June 1950 and February 1951, entered into illegal
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining agreements with UTE; and (4) by such conduct has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence perti-
nent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings and conclusions. Argument was waived ; a brief from the Respondent
has been received and considered.
At the opening of the hearing a representative of UTE orally adopted the
Respondent's answer. At its opening and during the hearing various motions by
the parties were ruled upon' At the close of the hearing ruling was reserved
upon a motion by the Respondent to dismiss the complaint. Disposition of this
motion is made in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations below.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Braswell Motor Freight Lines is a Texas corporation, having its principal office
and place of business in El Paso, Texas. It is a common carrier, engaged in the
business of interstate trucking. It maintains offices, loading docks, and terminals
in various cities in the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and
causes its vehicles to travel to, into, and through said States while transporting
goods.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Union No. 968, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, and Union of Transportation
Employees are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The UTE, the labor organization herein claimed by General Counsel to be
company-dominated and supported by the Respondent, is apparently known in
Texas trucking circles as the "Craig" union,' a designation clearly deriving
from the fact that its secretary and "attorney-in-fact" is R. S. Craig, involved in
the Board's findings in Red Arrow Freight Lines, Inc., et al.' In that case the
Board ordered disestablishment of the organization Craig then headed, and the
order was affirmed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.' Accord-
ing to statements of the Respondent's counsel at the opening of the hearing in
these proceedings, made in support of his motion for continuance, the question is
now pending before the same court as to whether UTE is "in fact a company-
dominated union," a question stemming from the Board's claim before the court
' Particular attention of the Board is called to a motion by Teamsters to amend the
complaint to include an allegation of violation of Section & ( a) (5) of the Act, which
General Counsel had declined to include. The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner.
Counsel for Teamsters , however , was permitted to make an offer of proof in support of the
motion in order that the issue might appropriately be before the Board.
? Superintendent C. B. Johnson testified that he "had heard talk" of the "Craig union
several times", but not until he came to Texas.
8 77 NLRB 859.
4 The original organization was known as "National Association of Motorized Common
Carrier Truck Line Employees", Red Arrow Freight Lines, Inc., 180 F. 2d 58.5.
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1155
that UTE is a successor organization. The question before the court relates only
to the companies involved in the earlier proceedings, to which the present
Respondent was not a party.
The court's ultimate disposition of the question now before it, the Trial Exam-
iner believes, has no bearing upon the issue in this case: whether or not the
Respondent Braswell has dominated and supported the formation and adminis-
tration of UTE among its employees. A generally legitimate and national labor
organization may be illegally supported by one employer and barred as the bar-
gaining representative of his employees.5
Only that part of the Respondent's operations which is included in its Texas
division is here involved. Offices, repair shops, and terminal, as well as manage-
ment, supervision, and control are maintained at the El Paso headquarters. The
employees here concerned are those embraced in this division-line or long-
haul drivers, city or pickup drivers, shop employees, and others, in El Paso,
Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Dallas, where operating points are
maintained.
As to the employees of the Texas division there is no substantial evidence of
any organizational efforts by any union until the spring of 1950.
According to his own testimony, J. V. Braswell, the Respondent's president
and general manager, was notified in mid-April, 1950 of the Teamsters' claim to
represent his employees at the Houston terminal. Braswell further admitted-
(1) that he did not answer the letter from the Teamsters but turned it over to
his attorney, and (2) that when at about the same time a Teamsters' official
telephoned to him regarding the claim and bargaining request he told the official
that when his superintendent, Johnson, came in he would have him go to Houston.
According to the testimony of Superintendent Johnson, he did not go to Houston
on this matter until the latter part of April. Also according to Johnson, after
talking with the terminal manager in Houston he called Braswell and told him
that the matter was then before the Board's Regional Office in Fort Worth,
whereupon Braswell told him to let the attorneys handle the question.
It is therefore clear from the testimony of the Respondent's top officials that
at least by the last of April they were well aware of the fact that Teamsters had
formally claimed to represent some of its Texas division employees.
In this setting the UTE was suddenly organized and in less than a week after
receiving its claim of representation the Respondent signed a contract with it,
covering employees in the entire Texas division.
Facts concerning the organization of Braswell's employees in UTE are briefly
as follows. About the middle of May, Bill Cave, a line driver, and G. F. Langridge,
a mechanic , both at El Paso, met with Braswell in the latter's office. Braswell
agreed to bargain with UTE if they brought it in, but said he would "park his
trucks" before he would bargain with the Teamsters "on anything." Cave com-
municated with Craig and was told where he could obtain UTE application
blanks. On May 20, Shop Foreman Carl Little sent employee Juan Martinez
from his work to Braswell's office where Cave and Langridge were already
waiting. In Braswell's presence and with his silent acquiescence, Cave told
Martinez of the plan to organize the UTE and that the men would get more money
as well as vacations with pay. Braswell then told Martinez to go out and tell
the Mexican employees what they "were going to do." Martinez proceeded to
carry out these instructions, Cave following with application blanks for signa-
tures, during working hours. Langridge signed up the garage employees. Also
on May 20 Assistant Traffic Manager Lane Johnson went with Cave to Dock
• Meyer cE Welch, Inc., 91 NLRB 1102.
242305-53-74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Foreman Eduardo Lopez. Johnson told Lopez that Cave was there to tell him
and his men "something about this union." Cave thereupon told Lopez and his
employees that they were to get higher wages and better jobs, and Lopez and the
others signed the proffered applications. Late that night Cave left El Paso, riding
with another driver, and for the next few days visited the other Texas stations,
signing up drivers.°
The conduct of Braswell and Johnson, above-described, as well as that of Cave,
Langridge, and Martinez, since they acted with the permission or under the
instructions of Braswell, plainly constituted initiation, sponsorship, and domi-
nation by the Respondent of the formation of UTE among its employees. Coer-
cion and interference stemmed not only from such domination, but also from
the fact that before solicitation of members got underway Braswell made it
clear to Cave and Langridge, as well as Martinez, that he would deal with it
and not the Teamsters in the Texas division, and that by joining UTE the
employees would enjoy economic benefits.
According to Craig, Cave sent him some signed UTE applications on May 20
and on May 24 gave him more, when they met in Houston. On May 29 UTE, by
letter, informed Braswell that it represented more than half of his Texas
division employees, and requested to meet with him for negotiation of a contract.
In sharp and significant disparity of treatment, Braswell did not ignore and
fail to reply to this letter, as he had the letter from Teamsters, but promptly
upon its receipt, on May 31, replied by letter, agreeing to negotiate upon presen-
tation of authorizations indicating majority representation.
On June 4 Braswell met with Craig and others, including a number of his
employees, who so far as the record shows, had never been elected by the em-
ployees themselves to represent them, and the same day signed a contract with
UTE, recognizing it as the exclusive bargaining agent, agreeing to "give considera-
tion to prospective employees furnished through the employment facilities" of
UTE, and in the event the "Texas Anti-Closed Shop Law" should be found
unenforceable, to hire new employees through UTE. A similar contract was
executed between the parties February 17, 1951, and this agreement was in
effect at the time of the hearing in these proceedings. Both contracts provided
for dues deductions, upon written authorization of the individual members,
from the employees' pay and payment of such dues direct to UTE. Since June 4,
1950, such dues have been turned over by the Respondent to UTE. Each member
of UTE is required, in order to retain membership, to authorize deduction of
his dues.
Not until after the contract of June 4, 1950, was executed were employees
generally informed of its provisions.
The Trial Examiner further concludes and finds that by executing the contracts
of June 4, 1950, and February 17, 1951, and by deducting dues from the pay of
UTE members among its employees, the Respondent has assisted and contributed
support to the administration of UTE. By dominating and sponsoring the forma-
tion and by assisting and contributing support to the administration of UTE
The above findings rest principally upon the credible testimony of Langridge, Martinez,
and Lopez . The denials of Braswell and Johnson are not credited . Cave was not called
as a witness . Resolution of the credibility issue as to Braswell rests in part upon the
Trial Examiner 's observation of him not only as a witness but also as he sat at the
counsel table while his former employees testified. Johnson's denial that he ever heard of
the UTE until after the contract was signed in June, or that he knew of a strike at the
Houston terminal on May 24 until "three or four weeks " later , casts discredit upon his
entire testimony.
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1157
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act T
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has interfered with, sponsored, and
dominated the formation of UTE and has assisted and contributed support
thereto. The effects and consequences of the Respondent's interference with,
domination and support of the UTE, as well as its continued recognition of the
UTE as the bargaining representative of its employees, constitute a continuing
obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their right to self-organization
and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
Mere restraint of the Respondent's acts of interference with and support of UTE
would not operate to recreate the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Act
which the Respondent's employees have been denied. Because of the Respond-
ent's illegal conduct with regard to UTE, the UTE is incapable of serving the
Respondent's employees as a genuine collective bargaining agency. Moreover,
the continued recognition of the UTE would be obstructive to the free exercise by
the employees of the rights guaranteed by the Act. Accordingly, the Trial
Examiner will- recommend that the Respondent withdraw all recognition from
the UTE, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the
UTE as such representative.
It has been found that the agreements entered into between the Respondent
and the UTE have been a means whereby the Respondent has utilized an
employer-dominated organization to frustrate self-organization and defeat genu-
ine collective bargaining by its employees. Under these circumstances any con-
tinuation, renewal, or modification of the current agreement would perpetuate
the conditions which have deprived employees of the rights guaranteed them
by the Act. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease giving
effect to any agreement between it and UTE, or to any modification or extension
thereof. Nothing in these recommendations should be taken, however, to require
the Respondent to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its
relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the Respondent established
in performance of the agreement as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented,
or superseded.
I Evidence was adduced at the hearing tending to show that Braswell, at the time of
entering so hastily into the June 4 contract, was aware that Teamsters had filed a petition
with the Regional Office claiming to represent El Paso employees, and that employees at
Houston were on strike for a similar purpose. No issue is raised in the complaint to the
effect that the contract was illegal because entered into at a time when a representation
proceeding was pending before the Board. It is not passed upon here. It is sufficient,
as found above, that the Respondent further gave unlawful support , by entering into the
agreement, to an illegally supported organization.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The trial Examiner is also of the opinion and will recommend that, under the
circumstances of this case, the Respondent shall, as a means of restoring the
status quo and remedying the unfair labor practices found, reimburse each
employee for the amount of fees and dues which the Respondent has checked
off his wages and paid over to UTE, less any amount, if any, already returned
to him by UTE.
Since it appears that the Respondent 's illegal conduct of interference , restrain,
and coercion stems from its conduct in dominating, interfering with, and sup-
porting the formation and administration of UTE, it will be recommended only
that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in like or related conduct
by otherwise interfering with the representation of its employees through a labor
organization of their own choosing.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in this case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union No. 968, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, and Union of Transportation Em-
ployees are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
the Union of Transportation Employees and by contributing support thereto,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights 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 affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH U NION OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES as the
representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it
or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all agreements and contracts, supple-
ments thereto or modifications thereof, or any superseding contract with
the above-named labor organization.
WE WILL NOT otherwise interfere with the representation of our employees
through a labor organization of their own choosing.
WE WILL reimburse all our employees, whose initiation fees and member-
WASHINGTON-OREGON SHINGLE WEAVERS' COUNCIL 1159
ship dues in the above -named labor organization have been checked off,
for the amounts thus deducted from their wages.
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ----------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
WASHINGTON-OREGON SHINGLE WEAVERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHAR-
TERED BY THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
EVERETT LOCAL 2580 SHINGLE WEAVERS UNION, UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA , A. F. OF L. and JOHN
E. MARTIN AND FRANK S . BARKER , CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS
SOUND SHINGLE Co . Case No. 19-CC-42. December 19,1950
Decision and Order
On May 21, 1952, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in this case , finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, in
violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), and recommending that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief, a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contro-
versy was moot, and exceptions to the rulings of the Trial Examiner
at the hearing. Sound Shingle filed a brief in reply to the motion to
dismiss and to the exceptions. The Respondents filed an answer to
the reply brief. The motion to dismiss on the ground of alleged
mootness is denied.' We also deny the requests of the Respondents
and Sound Shingle for oral argument, because the positions of the
parties are adequately developed in the record, exceptions, and briefs.
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.2 The Board has considered the Inter-
' See Local 74 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters d Joiners of America, A F. of L,
et al . v. N L R. B., 341 U. S 707, 715, enfg. 80 NLRB 533.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find no merit in the Respondents ' objections to the receipt
in evidence of union publications to show the Union 's policy on Canadian and other
nonunion shingles See International Union, United Mine Workers of America , et al.,
(Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp . et al.), 83 NLRB 916; International Typographical Union,
et al. ( American Newspaper Publishers Association ), 86 NLRB 951 . We also deem im-
material the rejected evidence on the Respondents ' controversy with Perma Products,
Inc., of Chehalis , Washington, and whether the carload of shingles received on January
11, 1952, belonged to Sound Shingle or to the Canadian producer . See New York Laundry,
Inc, 85 NLRB 1470, and infra.
101 NLRB No. 203.