Fort Worth Sand and Gravel Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 784 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any em-
ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
MILCO UNDERGARMENT CO., INC.,
Employer.
BLOOMSBURG BRAIDING CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated .. ...... By .......... ....... .......................................... ............. .
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO., INC. and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, LOCAL 47 and AN EMPLOYEES' COMMITTEE, Party
to the Contract . Case No. 16 - CA-565. August 18, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 15, 1953, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in cer-
tain unfair labor practices 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the 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 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 Intermediate Report, the Respondent's
exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,i and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following modification:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent
independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However,
we do not rely upon the remarks made by the Respondent's
vice president, Randol, in his speech to employees on Septem-
ber 19.
'For reasons stated in Fort Worth Sand and Gravel Co., Inc., Case No. 16-RC-1120
(not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions), we find that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case.
106 NLRB No. 129.
FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO., INC. 785
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent , Fort Worth Sand' and Gravel Co., Inc., of Fort
Worth, Texas, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Employees' Committee or with the formation,or administra-
tion of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing support to said Employees' Committee or any
other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Interrogating its employees with respect to their union
affiliations or activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Local 47, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
of such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Employees' Com-
mittee as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances , labor dis-
putes, wages , rates of pay , hours of employment , or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish that
organization or any successor thereto as such represen-
tative.
(b) Cease and desist from giving any effect to the June 3,
1952, bargaining agreement with the Employees ' Committee,
or to any extension or renewal thereof, without prejudice to
the assertion by the employees of any legal rights or benefits
acquired under such agreement.
(c) Post at its plants in Fort Worth, Texas, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A.'12 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees 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 the date-of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
Local 47, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec -
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with respect
to their union affiliations or activities.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation
or administration of any labor organization or contribute
financial or other support to it.
WE hereby withdraw all recognition from the Employees'
Committee as the representative of any of our employees
for the purposes of dealing with us concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and hereby disestab-
lish the said Committee as such representative.
WE WILL cease and desist from giving any effect to our
June 3, 1952 , bargaining contract with the Employees'
Committee or to any extension or renewal thereof.
FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO., INC. 787
All our employees are free to become or remain members
of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Local 47.
FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated ................ By.....................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL, Local 47, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated March 31, 1953, against Fort Worth Sand and Gravel
Co., Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the answer together with a notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent, the Union, and Joseph Forest Lloyd, a member of the
Employees' Committee, party to the contract, herein called the Committee.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that on or
about June 2, 1952, the Respondent did initiate, form, and sponsor the Committee and has to
date dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of, said
Committee; that from about June 2, 1952, and at all times thereafter the Respondent has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the
employees within a unit appropriate for collective bargaining though requested so to do by
the Union; that the Respondent interrogated its employees with respect to their union affil=
iations and has threatened and warned its employees to refrain from assisting or joining or
remaining members of the Union; that on June 3, 1952, the Respondent entered into a collec-
tive-bargaining contract with the Committee, which organization was the creature of its
unfair labor practices; that all said acts and conduct were violative of the Act, more partic-
ularly Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) thereof.'
On May 5, 1953, the Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted the jurisdiction of the
Board and the status of the Union but denied that it had engaged in any of the alleged unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Louis Plost, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
at Fort Worth, Texas, on May 18, 19, and 20, 1953 The General Counsel, the Respondent, and
the Union were represented by counsel, all being hereinafter referred to in the names of their
principals. 2 The parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues,
to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of
law with the undersigned.
'The complaint was amended at the hearing, as herein later discussed.
2 The Committee was not represented.
322615 0 - 54 - 51
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the course of the hearing the General Counsel moved to dismiss all that portion of
the complaint alleging that the Respondent had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (a)
(5) of the Act, by refusing to bargain with the Union. The motion was granted. 3
The complaint as amended therefore alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2). Issue was joined on these allegations.
At the conclusion of the evidence in the General Counsel's'case-in-chief and again at the
close of the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The undersigned denied
the motion.
The undersigned granted an unopposed motion by the General Counsel to conform the
pleadings to the proof with respect to spellings , names , dates , and similar matters.
The parties waived oral argument. Permission was granted to file briefs, findings of fact,
and/or conclusions of law with the undersigned. A brief has been received from the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is and has been since 1922 a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal office and place of business at
700 East 6th Street in the city of Fort Worth, and is now and has been at all times herein
mentioned continuously engaged at said place of business, and at mixing plants and ware-
houses at various locations in and around Fort Worth, hereinafter referred to as the "Fort
Worth plants," in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ready-mix concrete and related
products.
Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations at its Fort Worth plants
during the 12-month period ending December 31, 1952, which period is representative of all
times material hereto , purchased cement, sand, and gravel valued in excess of $500,000,
none of which was shipped in interstate commerce to the Fort Worth plants from points out-
side the State of Texas. During the same period, Respondent sold products consisting prin-
cipally of ready-mix concrete valued in excess of $ 600,000, none of which was shipped in
interstate commerce from its Fort Worth plants to points outside the State of Texas. During
the same period , Respondent made sales in excess of $ 50 , 000 worth • of ready-mix concrete
to the T. C. Patteson Construction Company job at the United States Army Quartermaster
Depot near Fort Worth, Texas. In addition, the Respondent made sales to various aircraft
companies and construction companies in excess of $50,000.4
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , AFL, Local 47, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act, and admits employees of the Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination and interference with the formation
and administration of the Committee
Artise Glenn Bailey, secretary-treasurer and business agent of the Union, telephoned to
the Respondent at about 10 or 11 a. m., June 2, 1952, and talked to J. J. Randol, its vice
president and general manager, whom Bailey informed that the Union had organized a major-
ity of the Respondent's truckdrivers and requested recognition and a meeting for the purpose
of negotiating a contract. At about 4:30 p. m. of the same day Bailey called on Randol at the
Respondent's office where he verbally repeated the request for recognition. Randol told
3 The General Counsel specifically refrained from moving to strike paragraphs 6 and 8 of
the complaint Paragraph 6 describes the appropriate unit, and paragraph 8 alleges a refusal
to bargain. The General Counsel contends that if proven these paragraphs would be the
basis for finding an 8 (a) (1) violation. The undersigned finds no merit in this contention.
4As pleaded and admitted.
FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO„ INC. 789
Bailey the request came as a surprise and he needed time to talk to the Respondent's offi-
cers. It was agreed that Bailey would call again in "three or four days" at which time Randol
"probably would be in a position" to tell Bailey whether the Respondent would agree to
recognize the Union or enter into a consent-election agreement.
On June 6, Bailey again called on Randol who told him he "had not had a chance to talk to
all the Respondent's officers" and asked for an additional "two or three" days. During their
conversation on June 6, Bailey told Randol that the claimed appropriate unit consisted of
truckdrivers, warehousemen, and mechanics. He was told that the mechanics were not the
Respondent's employees. The probability of including "batcher plant" employees and helpers
was also discussed at this time.
On June 11, the two men met again and Randol then informed Bailey the Respondent would
not recognize the Union until a Board-conducted election had been conducted.
The Union then filed a 9 (c) petition and wrote to the Respondent requesting recognition.5
Joseph F. Lloyd, employed by the Respondent as a truckdriver, was called to Manager
Randol's office by Foreman McDaniel on "either the 2nd or 3rd" of June 1952. Lloyd testi-
fied:
Well, he said something about a union man by the name of Bailey, he thought, had
called down there and he had talked to him or something, I don't know just how he got
around about that, and so I told him that--what we wanted, and what the discussion was
about, the reason we signed that, and he just told me about talking to the men. I told him,
I said, "Well, if we deal with you we just as soon stay within the company as go union,"
and he wanted--talking about getting all the men together.
Q. Did he ask you to get the men together?
A. Well, he said how about having a talk with them, and I told him I would rather for
him to talk with them, and he said, "Well, they won't talk with me. I'd rather for you to
call the meeting or have a talk with them," so I told him all right, I would.
Randol then instructed Lloyd to call a meeting and tell the drivers the Respondent would
agree to a pay raise and file an application with the WSB for a vacation, then to "come and
see me on the next morning."
Lloyd posted a notice calling a meeting of drivers for 6 to 6:30 a. m. the following morn-
ing. The meeting took place and Lloyd "told them what Mr. Randol wanted me to do." The
meeting agreed that the Respondent should be asked for a 10-cent an hour wage raise and a
vacation.
Lloyd asked employees Jesse Prince and Luthur B. York to accompany him to Randol's
office where according to Lloyd:
Well, we told him what the boys wanted and he said, "Well, all I can do is file for it,"
says, "I don't know whether I can give it to you or not," and he said, "We'll have to
file for the vacation," and he suggested to form this committee to get where we can
sign for them if there was a contract drawn up, and so we told him, we talked around
about that for a while, and then he got this slip of paper without names on it to represent
the truck drivers, and after the meeting was over we took it down in the bull pen and
posted it up.
The "slip of paper" which Randol had prepared for posting read:
AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned employees of the Fort Worth Sand and Gravel Company, Inc., do
hereby appoint J. H. PRINCE, J. F. LLOYD and L. B. YORK as a committee to represent
us in collective bargaining with the company.
Lloyd posted the document. It was thereafter signed by 38 employees.
5A petition was filed and docketed, 16-RC-1120. Election held in unit of:
All production and maintenance employees ... including truckdrivers, warehousemen,
and batchermen, excluding office clericals, guards, and supervisors.
Tally of ballots: For Union ........ 28
Against Union ..... 37
7 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The morning after the document was posted , the three employees , named as the "Com-
mittee," brought it to Randol who told them he had a contract prepared for their signatures.
Lloyd refused to sign the contract until the employees had first voted on it. On the next
morning the men voted against accepting the contract .6 Lloyd and the other two members so
informed Randol who at first urged them to sign the prepared contract regardless of the
vote, offering to include the raise in the pay checks for the current week, but on the "Com-
mittee" still refusing, Randolprepared another document which read:
Do you favor the Company 's proposal of 10c per hour increase in wages now and
their filing applications for approval of vacations.
Lloyd testified that:
Well, he said he'd get McDaniel to carry it around to the different plants , because we
have got about four or five different plants , and the men were working there , and get
them to sign it.
At about 4:30 that same afternoon Lloyd was called to Randol 's office, told that Prince and
York had already signed the contract , and asked to affix his name to it Lloyd signed.
Lloyd testified he signed the document on June 5, however , it is dated June 3. Lloyd fixed
the date of signing as Thursday , June 5, 1952:
By Mr. Randol 's saying if we'd sign it that morning when we first went up there, well,
he would have the office force to date it, give us the raise on the week we had done
worked ; see, our time week starts on Thursday and ends on Friday.
June 3; 1952 , fell on Tuesday, June 5 fell on Thursday
Employee Elbie Underwood testified that Foreman McDaniel called him into his office and
asked him to sign the document reading , "Do you favor the Company 's proposal of 10¢ per
hour increase in wages , etc.,"; that he refused to sign the document ; that later in the day
McDaniel brought the document to him and again asked him to sign it; that on this request
Underwood signed.
B. Events after the contract date
Interference , Restraint , and Coercion
The election was held on September 19. During the morning prior to the balloting Randol
addressed the electors. In his talk he disparaged the Union, its officers, and their motives. He
pointed out that in another plant, apparently operated by the Respondent , the employees voted
in a union and thereby lost valuable privileges previously enjoyed . He told his audience that
should they seek a raise in pay if the Union won, "it is up to them but if the Union loses,
then we will put our application through."
On September 25, Foreman Jack McKee asked employee George Peyton " if he had learned
anything else about the union " and upon receiving a negative reply told Peyton if he should
"hear anybody else say anything else about it, didn't care who it was, to let him know, he
was going to run them off." The Respondent offered no evidence.
The testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel stands entirely uncontradicted.
The undersigned on the entire record, all the evidence considered as a whole , and his obser-
vation of the witnesses , credits the testimony of William Hansard? Artise Glenn Bailey,
Joseph F . Lloyd, Elbie Underwood , and George Peyton.
Conclusions
The record is clear that upon first learning that the Union had organized certain of its
employees8 the Respondent embarked upon a course of conduct obviously designed to thwart
6 The vote was: Not to sign--27 ; to sign--14.
7 Hansard's testimony was not adverted to herein as it related only to matters later
abandoned by the General Counsel.
8 The fact that the Union did not at first instance clearly define the unit it later claimed
and which the Board found to be appropriate , has no bearing on the findings herein.
FORT WORTH SAND AND GRAVEL CO., INC. 791
its employees in their efforts toward self-organization . Randol put off any discussion with
respect to recognition of the Union and /or an election to determine the will of the employees
until such time as he had taken steps to set up a creature of his own with which he could
pretend to bargain , and in fact until this creature , herein referred to as the "Committee,"
had been organized , recognized , and given a contract.
There can be no doubt on this record that the Committee consisting of Lloyd, Prince, and
York was the Respondent 's creature ; created, aided, supported , and dominated by the
Respondent . Upon the entire record the undersigned concludes and finds that in violation of
the Act the Respondent has since June 3, 1952 , formed, dominated , and interfered with the
administration of the Committee.
By such domination , interference , and support of the administration of the Committee the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned is likewise convinced that this record clearly establishes that Randol's
speech to the employees , made on the morning preceding the balloting in the Board - conducted
election , was violative of the Act.
The undersigned does not believe it necessary to burden this report with a dissertation on
the abuse of the right of free speech by one who because of the existence of an employer-
gmployee relationship exerts economic pressure on auditors , in order to establish that
statements such as herein above quoted , when viewed in the light of the entire record and in
connection with the other unfair labor practices found herein , were intended to be and were in
fact coercive and in flagrant violation of the Act.
Likewise the conduct of Supervisor Jack McKee, as set forth in the testimony of George
Peyton, shows a continuing resolve by the Respondent to frustrate and illegally interfere with
the efforts of its employees to effect self -organization as guaranteed by the Act. The under-
signed also finds that the inquiries made of Peyton by McKee and the instructions given him,
as found herein, are violative of the Act.
The undersigned finds that by Randol 's speech of September 19, 1952, and by McKee's
conduct, all as herein found, the Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent described in section III, above , occurring in
connection with the Respondent 's operations 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 commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. It
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has also been found that the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the adminis-
tration of, and has contributed support to, the Committee . The effects and consequences of
this interference with and support of the Committee , as well as entering into an agreement
with it, are to frustrate self -organization and defeat genuine collective bargaining by
employees of the Respondent . It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent with-
draw all recognition from the Committee 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 conditions of employment , and completely dis-
establish it as such representative. It will also be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from giving effect to the contract with the Committee , or to any extension, re-
newal , modification , or supplement thereof, or any superseding agreement which may now be
in force . Nothing in these recommendations , however, should be taken to require the
Respondent to vary the wages , hours , or other substantive features of the agreement.
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are
coextensive with the threat contained in violations of the Act herein found. It will therefore
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon
the employees ' rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Fort Worth Sand and Gravel Co., Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL, Local 47, and the Committee, party to the contract, 9 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with, and contributing support to, the administration of
the Committee, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
9 The fact that apparently the Committee did not accept applications for membership or
have members in the usual sense, collect dues, or hold regular meetings does not affect its
status as a labor organization in view of its holding a collective-bargaining contract with
the Respondent.
KALAMAZOO VEGETABLE PARCHMENT COMPANY and IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 7, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2182. August 18,
1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Cecil Pearl,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
t The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the correct name of
the Petitioner as amended at the hearing.
106 NLRB No. 124.