Foster D. Snell, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 230 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. and METROPOLITAN FEDERATION
OF ARCIirrECTS, ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS, AND TECHNICIANS, LOCAL 231,
iJOPWA, CIO
Case No. O-C--86O4.-Decided November 18, 1947
4[r. Bertram Diamond, for the Board.
Mr. Carl P. Lot/zrop , of New York , N. Y., for the Respondent.
MYir. Thomas R. Sullivan , of New York, N. Y., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER1
On December 6,1946, Trial Examiner Mervin N. Bachman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent, Foster D. Snell, Inc., 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
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief. The respondent requested and was granted permission to
argue orally before the Board in Washington, D. C. On October 1,
1947, the Board notified the respondent that it had rescinded its action
in granting oral argument, and that in lieu of oral argument, any
party desiring to do so would be permitted to file, within 20 days there-
after, a supplemental brief or written argument setting forth the
matters which would have been covered in the oral argument. No
such supplemental briefs or written arguments have been filed by any
party.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and supporting brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
1 The power of the Board to issue a Decision and Order in a case such its the instant one,
where the charguie union ha, not complied pith the filing iegiurements speLnfied in section
9 (f), (g), and (11) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Naas decided by the
Board in hatter of Jilai clean and B1 uce Companit , 75 N L R B 90
75 N L It R , No 31 - i
230
FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 231
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the additions and
modification of the form of order 2 noted below :
At the hearing, the respondent moved that the Trial Examiner take
judicial notice of the provisions of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.3
While the Trial Examiner did not specifically rule on the motion at
the hearing, it is evident that, in his Intermediate Report, he.consid-
ered the impact of the Clayton Act upon the merits by finding that the
respondent's contention predicated upon the alleged applicability of
that statute was unfounded. However, the Board will herein spe-
cifically grant the motion and has taken judicial notice of the provi-
sions of the Clayton Act.
We have again carefully considered the respondent's contention
and argument in its brief that the Board lacks jurisdiction over its
operations. We see no reason to depart from our original finding that
the Board does have jurisdiction.4
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 the respondent, Foster D. Snell,
Inc., Brooklyn, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively with Metro-
politan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Techni-
cians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, if and when said labor organization
shall have complied, within 30 days from the date of this Order, with
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended,5 as the exclusive
representative of all technical employees of the respondent employed
at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, including chemists, bacteriologists,
engineers and technicians, but excluding office and management em-
ployees, service and maintenance employees, and supervisors;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Metropolitan
Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local
231, UOPWA, CIO, if and when said labor organization shall have
2 ,lir Houston and Mr . Murdock have stated their dissent fi om the conditional foi in of
order in Matter of .lfarshall and Bruce Company , 75 N L R B 90 However, they
now feel bound by the majority decision in that case , and, accordingly , concur in the form
of order herein
a 38 Stat 730
In addition to cases pieviousl } cited , see Aunerican Medical Association v United States,
317 U S 519 Borden Company v Borella , 325 U S 679 Mabee v White Plains Puhl,sh-
inq Co 327 U S 178 lVall,nq v Hunt Co , ( 1) C N D 111 ) 12 Labor Cases , Par 61,
721) Batter Itrothei s v N. L R B, 124 F ( 2d) 981 ( C C A 7 ), cert denied 320 U S 789
5 As to what con,tulutes comphance in this aespeet , see Matte, of Northern F rginw
Rroadcactrrs . Inc. 73 N L R I, 11
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complied with the filing requirements of the Act, as amended, in the
manner set forth above, to negotiate for or to represent the employees
in the aforesaid bargaining unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, and upon compliance by the Union with the filing
requirements of the Act, as amended, in the manner set forth above,
bargain collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Architects,
Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWVA, CIO, as
the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, acid other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a written, signed agreement;
(b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its plant located in
Brooklyn, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix A." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for thirty (30) consecutive
days thereafter and also for an additional thirty (30) consecutive
days in the event of compliance by the Union with the filing require-
ments of the Act, as amended, 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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, and again within
(10) days from the future date, if any, on which the respondent is
officially notified that the Union has met the condition hereinabove
set forth, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEN BEE HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
"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:
In the event that this Oider is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted, before the -,w ords "A Decision and 01 der ' the words "Decree of the United.
States Ciicmt Couit of Appeals Enforcing"
FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 233
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with Metropolitan
Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians,
Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement; provided said labor organi-
zation complies, within thirty (30) days from the date of the
aforesaid Order of the Board, With Section 9 (f), (g), and (h)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The bargain-
ing unit is :
All technical employees of Foster D. Snell, Inc., employed
at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, including chemists, bac-
teriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding office
and management employees, service and maintenance em-
ployees, and supervisors.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the
above-named Union to negotiate for or represent employees of
the aforesaid bargaining unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent;
provided said labor organization complies, within thirty (30)
days from the date of the aforesaid Order of the Board, with
Section 9 (f), (g) and (h) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
FOSTER D. SNELL, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Bertram Diamond, for the Board
Mr. Carl P. Lothrop, of New York, N. Y, for the Respondent.
Mr. Thomas R. Sullivan, of New York, N Y., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on October 3, 1946, by Metropolitan Federation of
Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for the Second Region (New York, New York) issued its complaint against
Foster D. Snell, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in, and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing where duly served, iilion the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in, subct ince :
(1) all technical employees of Respondent employed at its Brooklyn plant,
including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding
office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; (2) on or about September
24, 1946, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused to recognize and
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the
Respondent's employees in the unit designated by the Board as appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining although a majority of said employees
in such appropriate unit, by secret ballot conducted on or about August 19, 1946,
selected said Union as their collective bargaining representative
Thereafter, the Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted certain of
the allegations of the complaint, claimed that the Board lacked jurisdiction over
the operations of the Respondent and denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices. In substance, the answer alleged that the Respondent is not
engaged in commerce, and that its operations do not affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York, New York, on November
18, 1946, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondent were represented by
counsel and the Union by its International Representative Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties Since the facts were stipulated no
witnesses were called. A motion made by counsel for the Board to confoim the
pleadings to the proof as to such matters as dates, typographical errors and
other minor variances was granted without objection Motions to dismiss the
complaint made by counsel for the Respondent were taken under advisement and
ruling was reserved thereon by the undersigned at the hearing. These motions
and each of them are now denied for reasons appearing hereinafter in this report.
Opportunity for the filing of briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of
law with the undersigned was extended to the parties and was waived by
them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, with its principal office and place of business situated in
Brooklyn, New York, is engaged in furnishing scientific and technical advisory
services. It makes chemical and physical analyses of samples of materials and
products submitted by its clients, conducts research, and renders reports thereon.
During the year ending September 30, 1946, the approximate weekly number of
such reports embodying results of Respondent's research and opinions derived
therefrom which were transmitted by the Respondent to its clients, averaged
125. During the same period, 40 percent of such reports were sent by Respondent
FOSTER D. SNELL,.INC. 235
to clients outside the State of New York In addition to this work, which is
carried on in its laboratory and other facilities in Brooklyn, employees of the
Respondent are sent, at times, to plants of clients to instruct the latter's personnel
in the operation of new manufacturing processes About 125 of the approxi-
mately 320 clients serviced by the Respondent in the year ending September
30, 1946, have plants located in States of the United States other than New
York and about 10 clients have plants located in foreign countries. Approxi-
mately 60 percent of the materials and products tested by the Respondent is
shipped to Respondent's plant in Brooklyn by clients from their respective plants
Most of such materials is retained; about 5 percent is returned Respondent's
reports and opinions to its clients have been and are transmitted by mail, tele-
graph, and other means of communication in and between States of the United
States and foreign countries. During the year ending September 30, 1946, the
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, earned fees
in excess of $250,000 from its clients for services rendered of which approxi-
mately 39 percent was derived from services rendered to clients located outside
the State of New York During the same period, the Respondent purchased and
caused to be delivered to its Brooklyn plant approximately $5,000 worth of equip-
ment and supplies of which approximately 15 percent was transported to said
Brooklyn plant from States of the United States other than New York During
the same period, Respondent spent approximately $1,700 for listings in various
trade journals which are sold and distributed throughout the United States. The
Respondent stipulated at the hearing in the instant case that its operations have
continued to be substantially the same as those found by the Board in the i1fatter
of Poster D. Snell, Inc.'
The sole defense of the Respondent to the complaint herein is predicated upon
its contention that the Board lacks jurisdiction over its operations In support
of its contention before the undersigned, the Respondent argued, in substance,
that it was not engaged in commerce and that its operations do not affect com-
merce within the meaning of the Act. In rejecting the Respondent's similar
contention in the representation case, the Board stated :
"The facts . . . establish that a substantial portion of the products
tested, reports made, and supplies and materials used by the Company
are transported in interstate commerce; that the Company performs services
which form an essential part of the manufacturing processes of its many
clients who are directly engaged in interstate commerce ; and that the inter-
ruption of performance of the Company's services by season of a labor dis-
pute would interfere with the free flow in interstate commerce of its clients'
products. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Company's operations
meet the jurisdictional tests outlined lin the Act, and established by the
courts,' and find, contrary to the Company's contention, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act."
' Matter of Electrical Testing Laboratories , Inc, 65 N L R. B. 1239 ; Matter of
United States Testing Co , Inc, 5 N L R B. 696, Polish National Alliance of the
United States of America v N. L. R. B , 322 U. S 643 ; N L. R B v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corporation, 301 U. S 1.
The undersigned finds nothing in the evidence adduced and the arguments made
herein which justifies a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Board in
'69 N. L. It. B 764 . The above findings are based upon a stipulation of the parties
which was admitted in evidence at the instant hearing
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the representation case. Consequently, the undersigned finds that the opera-
tions of the Respondent are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians,
Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, is a labor organization admitting employees of the
Respondent to membership.
Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1 The appropriate unit
On July 22, 1946, after an appropriate hearing, the Board found that all
technical employees of the Respondent at its plant in Brooklyn, New York,
including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding
office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 3 At the hearing in the present
case, the parties stipulated to the appropriateness of said unit, and the under-
signed finds that at all times material herein, the aforesaid unit has been and
is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act
2 Majority status of the Union
On August 19, 1946, an election was conducted among the employees in the
above-found unit pursuant to the direction of the Board in the above-noted
representation case. At such election a majority of the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit, by secret ballot, selected the Union as their collective
bargaining representative. On September 10, 1946, the Board issued its certifica-
tion of the Union as the exclusive representative of such employees At the
hearing in the present case the parties stipulated that the Union was, on
August 19, 1946, and at all times thereafter, the exclusive representative of
the Respondent's employees in the above-found appropriate unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining with the Respondent with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and the undersigned
accordingly so finds.
3. The refusal to bargain
At the hearing in the present case the Respondent stipulated that on Septem-
ber 24, 1946, and at all times thereafter, it has refused to bargain with the
2 The Respondent argued herein that its operations constitute "labor" as defined in the
Clayton Act , and that , since "labor" is defined therein as not being "a commodity" or
"article of commerce," its operations do not constitute commerce for the purpose of con-
ferring jurisdiction upon the Board The undersigned finds no merit in this position be-
cause its clear implication is to the effect that the Board 's jurisdiction depends upon the
tangible nature of the item manufactured or sold by an employer Both the Board and
the Courts, as noted in the excerpt from the cited representation case, have rejected this
view, as does the undersigned herein
i See footnote 1 above.
FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 237
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-found
appropriate unit
The stipulation shows that the Union, on or about September 18, 1946, and
again on or about October 3, 1946, requested the Respondent to bargain col-
lectively with it as exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees in
the unit found appropriate by the Board In reply the Respondent, by letter
dated September 24, 1946, stated, in substance, that it was under no duty
to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union because the Board lacked
jurisdiction over its operations and that therefore the Board's findings as to
the appropriateness of the unit. the majority status of the Union, and its
certification of the Union as exclusive representative of its employees wete
not binding upon the Respondent The Respondent reiterated this position
on October 7, 1946 The arguments of the Respondent adduced to support its
position in this connection have been considered and rejected as untenable in
an earlier section of this Report' The undersigned therefore finds that, on
September 24, 1946, and at all times thereatter, the Respondent has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of its employees
in an appropriate unit and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON CO1IMERCF
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Because the Respondent's refusal to bargain is predicated solely upon its juris-
dictional objection, and because there is no evidence that danger of other unfair
labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent ' s conduct , the under-
signed will recommend only that the Respondent, in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act, cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from any
other acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to negotiate
for or represent the employees as exclusive bargaining representative in the unit
herein found appropriate.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians,
Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. All technical employees of the Respondent employed at its Brooklyn plant,
including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding
office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and all
4 See Section I above.
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians,
Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, was on August 19, 1946, and at all times thereafter has
been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
4. By refusing on September 24, 1946, and at all times thereafter to recognize
and to bargain collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers,
Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By the above acts, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent,
Foster D. Snell, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively with Metropolitan Fed-
eration of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA,
CIO, as the exclusive representative of all technical employees of the Respondent
employed at its Brooklyn plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and
technicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and mainte-
nance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Metropolitan Federation
of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO,
to bargain collectively with it on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Archi-
tects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written,
signed agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant located in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the notice
attached to this Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, after
being signed by the Respondent's representative shall be posted by the Respondent
FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 239
immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) con-
secutive 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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel
for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and
Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an
original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions and objections) as he relies upon, together
with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or
counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four
copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the
filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the
Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties
and shall file a copy with the Regional Director Proof of service on the other
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by
Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board.
MERVIN N BACHMAN,
Ti iat Examiner.
Dated December 6, 1946.
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 WILL BARGAIN collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Architects,
Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All technical employees of Foster D. Snell, Inc., employed at its
Brooklyn plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and tech-
nicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and
maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to hire, promote discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-
named Union to bargain with us or refuse to bargain with said Union as
the exclusive representative of all our employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit.
FOSTER D. SNELL, INC.,
Employer.
Dated --------------------- By ----
(Representative ) (Title)