International Woodworkers of America, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 189 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO 189
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a recommended order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees , or any applicants for
employment , in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in
any other labor organization , by refusing , to hire any applicant for employment
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to join , or assist the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion , 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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL offer to the individuals named below employment at the same or
substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been employed had
they not been discriminated ' against , without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges they might have acquired , in the manner set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner 's Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy":
Emma Roebuck Evelyn Bowen
Dolly Rackley Hugh H. Bowen
Johnnie Carter Verbie Grant
Louise Hickman Mabel Favela
Geneva Jordan Trilby Nadeen Gosa
Mae Gosa Mary Banks
Katie Scott Maxine Covin
WE WILL make whole the above-named persons and Mary Jordan for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner
recommended by the Trial Examiner.
Our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR 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.
International Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO and Central
Veneer , Incorporated . Case No. 25-CB-396. April 21, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 20, 1960, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding-
that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices but
recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port together with supporting briefs.
'131 NLRB No. 29.
190 , • •DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no. prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. • The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-'
dations of the Trial Examiner.
We disagree with the conclusion of our dissenting colleague that
Stringer was not-acting as an agent of the Respondent'in connection
with the matters involved in this proceeding.
As set forth in the. Intermediate Report, Gorman, who was clearly
an agent of the Respondent, instructed Stringer in the procedure to
be followed if the employees of Central wished to be represented by
Respondent; arranged to furnish Stringer with authorization cards
for that purpose; and utilized the signed authorization cards which
Stringer had procured in support of a petition which he filed with the
Board on behalf of Respondent. Stringer was not a rank-and-file
employee of Central and not an official of the Respondent, and he was,
as to the employees of Central, an outsider. As such he had been
approached by them "to find out how to form themselves into a union,"
and he had volunteered to organize them on behalf of Respondent.
The role of Stringer was apparent to the Respondent.
In these circumstances we conclude that when Respondent, acting
through Gorman, accepted his offer, instructed him in the procedures
to be followed, procured the cards for him, and accepted the fruits of
his efforts by filing a petition based on the signed cards he secured, it
made him its agent for the purpose of organizing Central's employees.
It is immaterial that Gorman did not "instruct" Stringer that he was
to organize Central's employees, as Gorman must have known that
such was Stringer's sole purpose in securing the authorization cards.
We find, accordingly, that Respondent was responsible for Stringer's
conduct in furtherance of that organizational purpose, whether or not
that specific conduct was authorized or ratified.'
Although we have found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, we agree with the Trial Examiner that a remedial
order is not warranted, and shall therefore dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
I am unable to find on the record before me that the General Counsel
has sustained the burden of proving that Stringer was acting as an
agent for the Respondent.
1 See International Brotherhood of Teamsters ( The Lane Construction Corporation),
111 NLRB 952, in which the Board held that the Union was responsible for the conduct
of a rank-and -file employee when the Union knew that employee was acting as a steward
and accepted the fruits of his activities as a steward.
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, 'AFL-CIO 191
The facts relating to Stringer's alleged agency relationship are not
seriously in dispute and are as follows :
On March 18, 1960, Walter Gorman, a service representative of the
Respondent for an area which includes Indiana, attended a meeting
of Hoosier Veneer Company employees to discuss a pending collective-
bargaining agreement. During this meeting, Stringer, an employee of
Hoosier and a rank-and-file union member, approached Gorman and
Everett Doss, president of the local union, and said that employees of
Central had indicated to him that they wished "to find out how to
form themselves into a union." Gorman explained to Stringer that
the employees would have to sign authorization cards and that a peti-
tion would have to be filed with the Board. Stringer then asked if
Gorman had any such cards. The latter answered in the negative,
but promised to send some when he returned to his office. At this point
Doss said that he had some cards left over from another organizational
campaign and gave them to Stringer. Gorman agreed to file a petition
with the Board if signed membership cards were sent to him.
Neither Gorman nor Doss informed Stringer that he was to obtain
the cards and take them to or sign up Central's employees; neither
gave him instructions as to what he was to say to employees; neither
told him that he was a representative of the Respondent; neither
promised him any reward for obtaining signed cards. Gorman did
tell Stringer that when the cards were signed they were to be turned
over to Doss who would send them to Gorman.
Stringer obtained most of the signatures on the membership cards
signed by employees of Central. He gave the cards to Doss who sent
them to Gorman. The latter filed a representation petition with the
Board together with 22 signed membership cards.
The burden of proof was on the General Counsel to prove the exist-
ence of the agency relationship between the Respondent and Stringer?
Agency is a contractual relationship, deriving from the mutual con-
sent of principal and agent that the agent shall act for the principal?
In the present case, the evidence falls short of establishing that, by
words or conduct, the Respondent and Stringer intended to create an
agency relationship. Stringer was a rank-and-file union member. So
far as appears, he had never held any union office and had never en-
gaged in an organizational campaign. He sought organizational in-
formation from Gorman about another shop at the request of Central's
employees. Gorman gave him that information. However, Gorman
did not instruct him that he was to organize such employees. "At that
T International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union , 01.0. (Sunset Line and
Twine Company ), 79 NLRB 1487, 1508.
s Ibid "An agency relation exists only if there has been a manifestation by the prin-
cipal to the agent that the agent may act on his account, and consent by the agent so to
act." Restatement , Agency ( 2d) § 15 ( 1958).
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD,
time," according to Gorman, he "had no indication that Stringer
would get the cards signed or would, have anything to do with signing
the cards., ., . ." The Respondent did not furnish Stringer with any
propaganda material. No representative of the Respondent partici-
pated with Stringer in obtaining signed membership cards from Cen-
tral's employees, nor engaged in conduct vis-a-vis Central's employees
which could lead them to believe that Stringer was acting as agent
of the Respondent.4 Neither did' Gorman's conduct in accepting the,
signed membership cards and filing them together with a representa-
tion petition constitute ratification of Stringer's conduct. "Ratifica-
tion is the affirmance by a person of a prior act which did not bind
him but which was done or professedly done on his account, whereby
the act, as to some or all persons, is given effect as if originally au-
thorized by him." s The mere clerical act of filing the representation
petition together with the authorization cards cannot be considered
affirmance of Stringer's conduct so as to constitute legal ratification
thereof.
I would therefore dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
General Counsel failed to establish that Stringer was an agent of the
Respondent.
CHAIRMAN MOCULLOCH and M mBER BROWN took no. part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
4The General Counsel relies principally on The Eclipse Lumber Company, Inc, 95
NLRB 464 472 to support his contention that Stringer was an agent of the Respondent
Union In Eclipse, the Board held that a union was responsible for the conduct of a
union member who, while canvassing delinquent members to collect back dues, said that
failure to pay such dues would lead to their discharge under a union-security contract,
where the alleged agent had been furnished by the union with a list of delinquent mem-
bers and was authorized to collect the back dues, had formerly been a full-time paid
special organizer for the union, and his threats followed the pattern of similar threats
by the union's secretary-treasurer and business agent. The Board concluded from these
facts that the alleged agent had apparent authority to represent the union and that the
employees had reasonable cause to believe that the collector had the authority to repre-
sent the union in this matter. In the present case, there is no such holding out of
Stringer by the Respondent Union. There is therefore no adequate basis for finding
agency responsibility on the theory of apparent authority.
6 Restatement, Agency (2d) § 82 (1958).
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner in Indianapolis, Indiana, on June 27, 1960, and October 31, 1960.
The issues litigated were whether William J. Stringer was an agent of International
Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, sometimes referred to herein as IWA or as
Respondent, at the times that said Stringer engaged in certain conduct specified and
complained of in the complaint in this matter and whether Respondent by virtue of
Stringer's conduct violated Section 8(b),(1) (A) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act or the Statute. The General Counsel and
the Respondent filed well-prepared briefs which the Trial Examiner considered in
preparing this Report.
Upon the entire record and observations of witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes
the following:
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO 193
FINDINGS AND' CONCLUSIONS
I: THE BUSINESS INVOLVED,
Central, Veneer,, Incorporated , an Indiana corporation with , its place of business'
in Indianapolis, Indiana, engages in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of wood
veneer and related products . In the course and conduct of its business Central
Veneer, Incorporated , ships , annually from its Indianapolis ,, Indiana, plant products
valued , in excess of $50,000 to points located , outside the State of Indiana.
Central Veneer,, Incorporated, at: all times material, hereto, has been, and is now,
engaged in commerce within the, meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR , ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, , is, and at all times mate-
rial herein has been, a labor organization' within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the'Act.
M. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ISSUES IN, DISPUTE
On March 18, 1960,, employees of the Hoosier Veneer Company of Indianap-
olis, Indiana , held a union meeting to discuss a proposed collective-bargaining
agreement between their employer and one of the locals of the International Wood-
workers of America, AFL-CIO (Local 5197). Among those participating in this
meeting were Walter Gorman, a service representative of the International Union,
Everett Doss, president of Local 5197,, and William J. Stringer, an employee of
Hoosier and a rank-and-file member of the Local.
Immediately after the meeting on the Hoosier contract, Gorman, Doss, and
Stringer engaged in discussion concerning organization of employees of Central
Veneer, Incorporated, also in Indianapolis . Prior to this discussion Stringer and his
uncle, an employee of Central with whom Stringer lived, considered the advantages
to Central's employees of representation through a union, and various persons
attending meetings of Local 5197, including Stringer, considered organizing, the un-
organized concerns in the area, including Central. The upshot of these discussions
was that Stringer on March 18, 1960, inquired of Gorman the appropriate procedure
for organizing the employees of Central. The exact words used in this conversation
were reported with some variation by the three participants (Gorman, Doss, and
Stringer) but the gist of the conversation was as follows: After the meeting of the
Local had ended and while Hoosier's employees were standing around talking,
Stringer inquired of Gorman the procedure for organizing the employees of Central
and was told (by Gorman) that the usual procedure was for employees to sign
authorization cards and then using these' cards to obtain a National Labor Relations
Board election . Gorman indicated further that if the employees of Central signed
authorization cards and the cards were turned' over to him, he would initiate the
Board proceeding but that he did not have blank cards with him. At that point
Doss, who. was standing close by, offered to bring some cards to work the following
Monday to give to Stringer, which he did. As this meeting ended the three par-
ticipants (Gorman, Doss, and Stringer) had, an understanding that Doss would supply
Stringer with blank authorization cards which Stringer would return to Doss when
executed, that Doss.would'send the signed cards to Gorman who would then file a peti-
tion for certification of representatives and submit the cards to the National Labor
Relations Board. This procedure was followed. See Case No. 25-RC-1821.
After getting the cards from Doss, Stringer approached the employees of Central
and sought their signatures upon the cards. In his efforts to obtain. signatures,
Stringer was aided by one other person selected by him. These were the only people
who solicited signatures from employees of Central. Respondent did not give
Stringer instructions or otherwise aid him in his efforts among employees of Cen-
tral, except as previously noted, and Stringer was not paid or reimbursed for his
efforts. He did not have a button, card, or pin designating him as a representative
of the TWA and he was never expressly made such a representative. Stringer took
complete charge of the efforts to obtain signatures and acted in his own uncontrolled
discretion. Except for the conversation of March 18, 1960 (noted above), and the
fact that the procedure followed coincided with the procedure established. Respond-
ent was . not aware of Stringer's activity among Central's employees and it was not
aware that Stringer had engaged in the conduct which constitutes the basis for this
case until the opening of the hearing herein on June 27, 1960.
On substantially the same facts as those noted above, the Trial Examiner at the
conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief (that portion of the General
599198-62-vol. 131-14
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Counsel 's case dealing with this issue-no evidence bearing upon the merits had
been received at this point ), granted Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that the General Counsel had not made a prima facie showing that
Stringer was an agent of International Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO (Re-
spondent herein ). Thereafter, on July 20, 1960 , the General Counsel filed a,re-
quest for review of the dismissal and the - Board, on September 14, 1960, granted
said request and ordered "a further hearing . . . for the purpose of completing the
trial of the issues involved in the proceeding." Further hearing , in accordance with
the Board 's order, was held on October 31, 1960 , but, as inferred above ; no-facts,
substantially different from those already in the record concerning agency were
adduced . In the light of the foregoing , especially the Board 's action noted immedi-
ately above , the Trial Examiner rejects Respondent 's contention that this case should
be dismissed because of failure to establish agency.
As noted above, Stringer approached employees of Central and sought their sig-
natures upon IWA authorization cards. He obtained 18 or 19 signatures and it is.
alleged that in-two instances he exceeded the permissible and engaged in conduct,
giving rise to the unfair labor practice allegations involved herein.
Among the employees with whom Stringer discussed union membership were
William Hicks and Wendell Lee Hicks , brothers who were production employees at
Central . The two Hickses signed IWA cards on March 21 or 22, 1960.1
William Hicks testified that Stringer approached him identifying himself as being,
"from [ or with] the Woodworkers Union" and solicited his signature to the card
and that he ( William Hicks) then-
asked if Bill Lucas signed . He said , "No. Bill hadn't signed ." I asked him
what would happen if Bill didn 't sign . He said, "If the Union got in he'd have
to sign or get another job."
TRIAL EXAMINER : Was anything else said , do you remember?
The WITNESS : No, sir.
By Mr . FISHER:
Q. Do you recall anything else that was said?
A. No, sir.
After prodding by the General Counsel, William Hicks answered "yes" to the ques-
tion, "Did Mr . Stringer say they 'll [other employees of Central ] have to find another
job that they cannot work there with the Union there unless they belong ?" Later
in his testimony William Hicks testified Stringer told him "if the Union got in they'd
[other employees of Central ] have to either sign or get another job." Still later
he testified Stringer said "if the Union gets in the ones that don 't sign now will have
to sign them later or get another job."
Immediately following the aforementioned conversation and the signing of the
card by William Hicks , he volunteered to drive Stringer to Wendell Lee Hicks ' house.
Stringer accepted the invitation . Upon arrival at Wendell Lee Hicks' house, Wil-
liam Hicks introduced Stringer as being with the "Woodworkers Union " and Stringer
then successfully solicited Wendell Lee Hicks' signature . According to William
Hicks, Stringer told his brother ( Wendell ) "you might as well sign now, you 'll have
to sign later or find another job." Although originally saying that Stringer did not
tell his brother that other employees would either have to sign or get another job,
William Hicks finally remembered that such a statement was made to his brother.
Wendell Hicks , during direct examination , testified:
Jackie [ Stringer] showed me an application card for membership with the
International Woodworkers of America and he said he had 17 or 18 men
signed for the Union and that he only needed one over half to put the Union
1 The cards read as follows :
Application for membership in International Woodworkers of America , affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organization and Canadian Congress of Labour.
Name (print) ---------------------- Book No-------------------------
Home address---------------------- Date of Birth_____________________
Employed at----------------------- S.S. No--------------------------
Starting date______________________ Local No_________________________
I hereby request and accept membership in the International Woodworkers of
America and of my own free will hereby authorize the IW of A to act for me as the
collective bargaining agency in all matters pertaining to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment or other conditions of employment.
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 195
in and that he already had one over.'half of :the employees signed . He said
you "night just as ,soon sign how- because if the Union goes in, after the Union
goes in, you'll have to sign or get another job.
On, cross-examination Wendell Hicks testified that Stringer said , "You will have to
sign now or sign later anyway because after the Union goes in there won't be any
place for [you] if you don't sign" or words to that effect.
Stringer testified that when he approached. Central's employees he identified him-
self as an employee of Hoosier and offered the employees the cards telling them
that if they signed the cards they would be forwarded to the Respondent (Gorman,
via Doss) who would in turn use them in seeking an election among Central's em-
ployees. He denied that he ever told anybody he was "a representative of the Wood-
workers Union" or that he was "from the International Woodworkers Union."
Stringer denied telling William Hicks that "if Bill Lucas didn't join the Union that
when the Union came in he 'd lose his job," denied telling William Hicks "anybody
would lose their job when the union came in," denied telling William Hicks "he,
William Hicks, would lose his job if the Union came in and he didn't sign a card,"
and denied saying anything to William Hicks whatsoever "about anybody losing his
job if he didn't join up with the Union." Stringer denied telling Wendell Hicks that
"he might as well sign or if he didn't when the Union came in he'd be out looking
for another job," and denied telling Wendell Hicks that "he or anybody else would
lose his job depending upon his union membership or non-membership."
The Trial Examiner has little or no doubt that Stringer by his actions, if indeed
not by his words, gave an impression that he was organizing Central employees on
behalf of the Respondent. While the matter is not free from doubt, the Trial Ex-
aminer also believes and finds that Stringer impressed upon the two Hickses that if
they did not sign the cards,their jobs were in jeopardy. In making these credible
resolutions the Trial Examiner has considered the demeanor of the witnesses, their
apparent ages and backgrounds, the printed record herein, likely probabilities, and
the briefs filed in this matter.
Holding, as the Trial Examiner does, that Stringer was an agent of the Respondent
and that while acting as such agent he engaged in conduct proscribed by the Act,
a question arises as to whether in the instant matter it is appropriate to recommend
dismissal of the complaint rather than issuance of the usual cease-and-desist order.
Such issue arises because the conduct involved was by a minor official (an underling
having limited authority-see N.L.R.B. v. Whittier Mills Company, et al., 111 F. 2d
474, 479 (C.A. 5) ), because only by inference can the conduct complained of be
construed to be representative of Respondent's policy 2 and because the General
Counsel's announced reason for processing this case (which the General Counsel
described as involving "two incidents of isolated threats") is to protect the Board's
election process, although the General Counsel "is not asking anything with regard
to the RC" case. Under the circumstances mentioned above, the Trial Examiner
believes and finds that the findings and conclusions made in this report concerning
the disputed matters are adequate to accomplish the purposes of the Statute 3 and
that it is appropriate herein to recommend dismissal of the complaint. See The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 757.
ULTIMATE . FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board 's requirements for
the assertion of jurisdiction herein.
2. International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
3. At the times material herein William J . Stringer was acting as an agent of
International Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO.
Such inference arises from the acts themselves and from the fact that Respondent
relied upon the cards to support Its position in the RC case. However, such an inference
is materially weakened In the light of the fact that Respondent was not aware of the
proscribed conduct when it relied upon the cards.
a Including the General Counsel 's desire to protect the Board 's election process. Pre-
sumably, the General Counsel will endeavor to bring the matters set forth in this report
to the Board's attention in the RC case via an appropriate procedure in the RC proceed-
ing. The absence of a cease-and-desist order will not materially lessen the weight which
the Board might otherwise give to this report in an RC case.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The evidence adduced herein establishes that International Woodworkers of
America , AFL-CIO, through its agent, William J. Stringer , violated Section 8(b)
(1) (A) of the Act.
5. The incidents involved herein are not so convictive of a fixed determination
on the part of Respondent to deprive employees of rights secured by the Act as to
justify a belief that the Act's preventive purposes will or may be thwarted unless
an order to cease and desist from such acts be recommended or issued.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Lion Brand , Inc. and International Union of Electrical , Radio,
and Machine Workers, District 3, AFL-CIO.1 Case No. 3-RC-
2344. April 21, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Galvin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. Recently, upon a stipulated settlement, the Board asserted juris-
diction over the Employer and entered a Decision and Order dated
June 13, 1960, in Case No. 2-CA-6768, L. ai B. Products Corp., Lion
Brand, Inc. (not published in NLRB volumes). In the absence of
any change in the Employer's operation since that time, we find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 The Intervenor and counsel for L . & B. Products contended at the hearing that the
hearing officer erred in granting the motion to amend the petition to reflect a change in
the name of the Employer from L. & B. Products to Lion Brand , Inc., for the reason that
Lion Brand, Inc., is a different corporation which did not receive notice of these pro-
ceedings . The face of the petition clearly indicates in all other respects that Lion Brand,
Inc., Is the Employer herein . For example , as described in the petition , the employees
involved and the plant identified could only be those of Lion Brand, Inc., at the Stottville
location . The record shows that Joseph Zelinger , the general manager of Lion Brand,
Inc., at its Stottville plant, received a copy of the petition and notice of these representa-
tion proceedings . Moreover , there appears to be a close relationship of management and
business interests between the two corporations . After the amendment to the petition,
counsel who had appeared for L. & B. Products participated in the proceeding and made
contentions with respect to the interests of Lion Brand , Inc. Under these circumstances,
Lion Brand, Inc., cannot properly plead surprise , and the amendment of the petition with
respect to the Employer 's name was , as we find, merely the correction of a formal defect
in the petition and was not prejudicial to the Employer . Accordingly , the motion to dis-
miss the petition is denied.
S Avco Manufacturing Corporation , Appliance and Electronics Division, 107 NLRB 295.
6 Stottville Independent Union , Inc., intervened on a basis of its contractual interest in
the employees.
131 NLRB No. 32.