Gera Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 333 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

GERA MILLS 333 stantial 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents, save Carpenters, have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act See L B. E. W. v N. L. R. B., 341 U S. 694 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No 24, AFL; Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local Union No 79, AFL, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 208. AFL. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1351, AFL, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local Union No. 720, AFL, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 9, AFL; and United Association of_Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 3, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By engaging in picketing with an object thereof to force or require Climax to cease doing business with Ryan and with a further object of forcing or requiring other employers to cease doing business with Climaxsoastoforceor require Climax to cease doing business with Ryan, Respondents, save Carpenters, have each engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4 Respondents, save Carpenters, by picketing for theobjects described above have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 5. Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1351, AFL, has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. 6 Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication) GERA MILLS and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 2-CA-2905. April 21, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On November 30, 1953, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings 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 supporting brief, and 108 NLRB No. 63. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Gera Mills, Passaic , New Jersey, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL, by failing to recall any of their employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co- ercing their employees in the exercise of the right of self- organization; to form labor organizations , to join or assist United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted 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 it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Bertha Pelka immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy," in the Intermediate Report. (b) Make said Bertha Pelka whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the interference, restraint, coercion, and discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy," in the Intermediate Report. (c) Post at its plant in Passaic, New Jersey, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report 2 and marked "Appendix A." 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 IIn view of the Respondent's condonation of Pelka's activities as a striker, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the strike in which she participated constituted protected or, as the Trial Examiner found, unprotected concerted activity within the meaning of the Act. 2 In 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." GERA MILLS 335 be maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its 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 Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above Decisiop and Order. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order The complaint herein alleges that the Respondent' has violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, by failing to recall and refusing to reinstate Bertha Pelka since on or about October 8, 1952, although it had previously agreed to recall and reinstate her and other employees , the reason for such failure and refusal being Pelka's Union membership and concerted activities The answer denies any agreement to recall and reinstate, denies that Pelka applied for reinstatement , and further denies the allegations of unfair labor practicies , alleging that certain employees struck illegally to compel the Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union while representation proceedings were pending before the Board. A hearing was held before meat NewYork, New York, on October 12 and 13, 1953. Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, and thetime therefor having been extended , briefs were there- after filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT ( with reasons therefor) L THE RESPONDENT' S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was admitted and I find that the Respondent , a New Jersey corporation with principal place of business in Passaic , NewJersey , is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of woolen and worsted piece goods and related products, that during 1952 it purchased and caused to be delivered to its Passaic plant materials valued at more than $ 1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of which was transported to said plant from States other than the State of New Jersey; that during 1952 the Respondent manufactured at said plant products valued at more than $ 1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of which was transported there- from to points outside the State of New Jersey, and that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. It was stipulated and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. IL THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent had had several collective- bargaining agreements with Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, the latest in an uninterrupted series expiring March 15, 1952. Two meetings looking to another agreement were held prior to that date , and several within a short time thereafter . A schism developed in the parent organization , and among others Serraino, a vice president of the International and New Jersey State director , Mocsinka , president of the Local, and Pelka , secretary of the Local, transferred their sympathy, allegiance, and activities to the AFL. On the afternoon of August 17, the AFL held a meeting of the Respondent ' s employees,2 at which working conditions and grievances were discussed and a vote taken to strike for 1"Gera Mills," as amended at the hearing. 2 How many employees attended does not appear. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD improvement of such conditions. At no time prior to commencement of the strike the follow- ing morning had the demands for improved working conditions been discussed with the Re- spondent. Although it was testified that the strike did not have "anything to do with" the pending election or recognition, the AFL had in a letter dated May 22 demanded recognition as bargaining agent, and a sign on the picket line read: "We want our contract back in the A. F. of L."3 Whether Baldanzi, on behalf of the AFL on July 1 and 7, threatened a strike if the AFL were not recognized , need not be determined . In tie absence of prior discussion and in the light of the letter and sign mentioned, I find that this was not an economic strike, but one for recognition. In August and prior to the strike, representation petitions were filed for certification of a collective-bargaining representative for the Respondent ' s production and maintenance em- ployees. The Board conducted an election on November 25, and on December 4 certified the CIO. There is no proof that the AFL at any time represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Respondent did not adequately support its claim at the hearing that the AFL represented only a minority and, as I noted at the hearing without dissent from any of the parties, we can only speculate whether it had a majority during the strike. The fact that only a minority worked on the first day of the strike is not to be accepted as proof of the AFL's majority, 4 on the other hand that an unidentified majority (whether any were new employees does not appear ) worked thereafter is not to be taken as proof of employees' denial or disavowal of the striking union I shall proceed on the basis that the strike was unprotected, in the absence of proof of majority; but neither is there proof that this was in fact a minority strike and as such unlawful , as distinguished from unprotected . Recognizing the degrees of offense indicated in the Mackay Radio case, I find in any event that the employees who participated in the activity "of the kind herein found may . invoke the protection of the Act" where there is an agreement to reemploy them or where condonation is indicated by actual employment of their number This evaluation of the situation as it existed is under- girded by the complete condonation manifested and effectuated by the Respondent, as noted infra, except with respect to Pelka. (In the Mackay case there was no finding of discrimination against individuals on account of their concerted activities. As for the instant case, this matter will be considered infra ) On October 7 the strikers voted to return, and Mocsinka so advised Borneman, the Re- spondent ' s industrial relations director . Mocsinka asked how many days employees would have to return, and Borneman replied thathewould follow the "old system' or "old method." When the former asked whether that meant3days, Borneman's answer was in the affirmative: he would take back anyone who would work as he had to get the mill going. Mocsinka explained that the old system was themethod followedunder the contract which had expired on March 15, and under which a laid-off employee, when recalled,had 36 days within which to notify the Re- spondent that he would return and then, having given such notice, had 2 weeks within which to arrange his affairs and report for work. Mocsinka testified that during that conversation with Borneman the 2-week period was also mentioned. The latter denied that reference was made to the 2-week period and, pointing out that the contract provisions were limited to cases of layoff, maintained that the conversation had no relation to the already expired contract Pressed to explain his own reference to the old method,,, he replied that it may have meant "nothing at all." That the contract had expired and that the provision referred to was limited to layoffs did not prevent following or adoption of that method to the later situation in con- nection with reinstatement of the strikers. I do not accept the explanation, or lack of it, that a portion of the conversation may have meant nothing at all, I am satisfied that Borneman agreed to recall the strikers and to follow the 3- or 4-day and 2-week system. (Despite his denial of its applicability, he appears to have followed the practice in the case of Kuta, who on being recalled on November 24 telephoned that she would be in later, and who was marked off the rolls on December 8.) 3 There is nowhere a suggestion that recognition was sought for members only. Cf. Elec- tronics Equipment Co , Inc., 94 NLRB 62. 4Cf. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 92 NLRB 1622, s Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company, Inc.. 96 NLRB 740. In that case the respondent cited N L. R. B. v. Indiana Desk Co , 149 F. 2d 987 (C. A. 7), cited by the instant Respondent, and the Board presumably considered it when it declared: "We do not here hold ... that participation in an unlawful strike automatically terminates the strikers' employment relationship." 6 The contract allowed 4 days, but he explained that he always spoke of 3 days to allow a margin for dilatoriness. GERA MILLS 337 Further , and aside from any agreement to reinstate the strikers , it is clear that with the exception of Pelka, all of the employees in the cone winding department were recalled as needed after the strike and for several months thereafter .? (Distinction was clearly noted between recall , initiated by the Respondent , and request for reinstatement , initiated by em- ployees .) The record indicates that , again excepting Pelka, the cone winders were recalled in order of seniority .! That it was fortuitous and coincidental that they were reemployed or, in the case of those who were recalled but did not return, recalled in strict order of seniority strains credulity . Although seventh on the list of cone winders noted , Pelka was not recalled. Having, despite the unprotected strike , 9 condoned or waived 10 that activity , the Respondent was obliged to reemploy all without distinction except for valid reason for distinction. There is no basis for assuming that the other strikers had greater claim to recall than did Pelka. 11 More specific as regards Pelka than the general issue of condonation by agreement or practice is Borneman ' s testimony that she remained on the employment records until early in February 1953 and that he considered her an employee until that time. If a promise to reinstate indicates intent to condone,12 retention on the employment rolls as here is of similar significance . AS noted , an employer may replace and refuse to reinstate employees who engage in an unprotected strike . But Pelka , retained on the rolls , was not replaced, and Borneman testified that the failure to reinstate was not connected with union activity. (If she wanted a job, all she had to do was to apply ; but he would not guarantee that she'd get it!) The failure to recall her demands justification ; but such justification is not in evidence. Borneman testified that she became "undesirable" several years ago and that he told her so on several occasions . Asked to describe these occasions , he'mentioned 1 incident (the last which he recalled ) when lipstick was ground into 2 girls ' coats : when Bornemar started to question employees in the department concerning the incident, Pelka, as shop steward, together with the CIO ' s business agent objected to the procedure being followed and threatened to close the shop down if the investigation were pursued . Not only was Pelka here acting in a recognized representative capacity , but Borneman testified that he considered this incident minor and it was not the basis for considering her undesirable . Borneman referred to another occasion , the date of which he did not know , when Pelka gllegedly used vile language to a time study engineer , who reprimanded her; that engineer has mentioned this incident to Borneman several times during the current year , and presumably at the time of the occurrence ( although that is not clear), but Borneman never spoke to Pelka about it. It was further reported to him on a number of occasions that Pelka was telling people to slow down , take time out, etc., and a check made between December 27, 1951, and January 10 , 1952, indicated that employees spent more time away from work on her shift than on the other shift . Who contributed to this condition , to what extent , and whether any action was taken were not shown . As proof of Pelka 's undesirability , this testimony calls for no further comment. Finally in this connection it should be noted that after a general layoff Pelka was recalled to work as recently as June 25, 1952, and when , at that time , she asked that someone with less seniority take her place until the Respondent could offer a full workweek , Borneman insisted that she work. On August 21, while Pelka was on strike , her place was filled by another employee, Marszal, who continued until the department was laid off on September 19. The latter was recalled on November 13 but did not respond . If Pelka had any right to reinstatement as an economic striker , it survived this replacement . 13 But that she was not in fact replaced or considered 7A general statement was made that some employees ( here or in other departments) were not recalled , and that some requested reinstatement. What the circumstances were elsewhere does not appear ; we are limited, as was the proof , to the cone winding department. 8Borneman testified that seniority was not recognized after expiration of the old contract on March 15, 1952 , and throughout the period here considered , although it was used as a guide. 9 It does not appear that at any time during the period of these recalls the Respondent pointed to the strike as justification for refusal to recall or reemploy . Cf. Longview Furniture Company , 100 NLRB 301 , where reference was made to the period when the employer merely indicated that it would reinstate , as distinguished from actual recalls. 'OCf. Hoover Company v . N. L. R. B. , 191 F. 2d 380 (C. A. 6), where it was held that an em- ployer may discharge or refuse to reinstate strikers who seek to force an illegal act, but that reinstatement may be directed where the employer has indicated a waiver. See also American Shuffleboard Company v . N. L. R. B. , 190 F . 2d 898 (C. A. 3); Clearfield Cheese Company, Inc., infra. n Cf. Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp ., 106 NLRB 1171. 12 Clearfield Cheese Company , Inc., 106 NLRB 417. IsUnion Bus Terminal ofDallas , Inc., 98NLRB458 ; Roure- Dupont Mfg., Inc., 93 NLRB 1240. 339676 0 - 55 - 23 ' 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD so by the Respondent (and that she was not in fact an undesirable ) is proven by her retention on the employment records until February 1953, to which date Borneman considered her an employee , as noted supra ( Pelka was also included in the Respondent 's list of eligible em- ployees for the election held on November 25, 1952.) In the absence of other adequate explanation for the failure to recall Pelka, attention must turn to her concerted activities . Her activity onbehalf of the AFL after the schism and during the strike and the Respondent ' s knowledge of such activity are unquestioned and need not be detailed . I note specifically that during the strike she spoke daily in Polish over the loud- speaker system to those employees who could not understand English (Borneman one day protested to her the English version of her remarks as a personal attack upon him), and she alone of the cone winders was on the strike committee which several times met with Borneman. That other AFL stalwarts were recalled may be considered ; but it does not overcome the inference to be drawn where satisfactory explanation is not given 14 "Since the explanation of the discharge offered by the respondent did not stand up under scrutiny , that fact in itself strengthen(s) the ... inference drawn from the other facts. "Is For the reasons noted, I find that the Respondent discriminatorily and in violation of the Act , failed to recall Pelka on November 13, when cone winders junior to her were recalled . This discrimination is clear even though other members of the strike committee , employed in other departments , appar- ently were recalled or were not refused reinstatement . ( The Respondent does not claim that Pelka was discharged because she "lead an illegal walkout ." 16 On the contrary , it points to the fact that other strike leaders were not discharged ) As for the allegation that Pelka applied for reinstatement 17 about November 15, it appears that when she filed the charge she placed such application as having been made on October 12. She testified that this was in error , but that about 2 weeks before the election of November 25 she telephoned Wrigley , the Respondent 's employment manager, and asked for her job, mentioning that others with less seniority had been recalled , to which Wrigley replied that he knew , but he was following orders from higher up. She testified further that the following day she telephoned Wrigley again , this time from the AFL office and asked two questions according to Serraino ' s direction: Whether shehad been fired or was still an employee , to which Wrigley replied That she was still an employee ; and whether the coming election had anything to do with her not being recalled , which Wrigley answered in the negative . Serraino testified that he listened on an extension telephone to the second of these alleged calls Wrigley denied that there were any such telephone calls, and denied further that Pelka had ever reapplied . On this issue of credibility I note , besides Pelka's uncertainty of the dates , that Serraino was likewise unable to fix the time closer than as being within an approximately 10-day period in the middle of November , this despite the prearrangement and the double connection on the second call, and its apparent importance to him.1 Nor am I impressed by the testimony concerning Wrigley's all-too-convenient reference to "orders fromhigherup ," a reference which , having observed him, I do not believe he would make especially under such circumstances . I credit Wrigley's denial although I have rejected his testimony , referred to supra that "it just happened" that recalls were made in order of seniority , no attention having been paid to that factor . I find that Pelka did not apply for reinstatement. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the 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. 14 W C . Nabors Company, 89 NLRB 538 . Further, it is clear , if any basis can be found for regarding Pelka as an "undesirable " employee, that her concerted activities "weighed more heavily in the decision to fire (her)thandid dissatisfaction with (her) performance ." (N. L. R. B v. Whitin Machine Works , 204 F . 2d 883 (C. A. 1).) >s N L. R . B. v. Brezner Tanning Co ., 141 F. 2d 62 (C A. 1). Is Harnischfeger Corporation v, N. L. R. B., 207 F. 2d 575 (C. A 7). tt This issue lends itself to speedy determination , and is considered because of the questions of law connected with the finding of discriminatory failure to recall. lsSerraino 's recollection of the signs on the picket line also appeared to be faulty. GERA MILLS 339 IV. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent, by failing to recall Bertha Pelka, discruninated against her in respect to her hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent offer to said Bertha Pelka, imme- diate reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, 19 without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discriminatory action aforementioned by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have earned less her net earnings,20 which sum shall be computed ?1 on a quarterly basis during the period from the discriminatory discharge or failure to recall to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. It is also recom- mended that the Board order the Respondent to make available to it upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due 22 The nature of the unfair labor practice found herein indicates a purpose to limit the lawful concerted activities of the Respondent's employees. Such purpose is related to other unfair labor practices , and it is found that the danger of their commission is reasonably to be apprehended. I shall therefore recommend a broad cease-and-desist order, prohibiting infringement in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Bertha Pelka, thereby discouraging membership in the Union , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3 By such discrimination thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section? 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 labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication I The Chase National Bank of theCityofNew York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 NLRB 827. 20 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. See also Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R. B.,311U.S.7. 21 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 22 Ibid. 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by failing to recall any of our em- ployees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assist United Textile Workers of America , AFL, or any other labor organization , to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted 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. WE WILL offer to Bertha Pelka immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the interference, restraint , coercion , and discrimination against her. All of our employees are freetobecome , remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining members in good standing in United Textile Workers of America , AFL, or any other labor organization , except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. GERA MILLS, 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. ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and INDUS- TRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-CA-1471. April 21, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On November 10, 1953, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged inthe complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed no exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con- sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in. this case, and finds merit in the Respond- ent's exceptions. 1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent did not refuse employment to Doyle in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. As no exceptions were filed to this finding, we shall dismiss that portion of the, com- plaint. 108 NLRB No. 70.