National Survey Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 783 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

NATIONAL SURVEY SERVICE, INC. 783
National Survey Service , Inc. and Chicago Journeymen Plumbers'
Local Union 130 , U.A. Technical Division , AFL-CIO. Case No.
13-CA-6673. March 18, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 11, 1965, Trial Examiner Owsley hose issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. A brief urging
the National Labor Relations Board to decline jurisdiction over the
Respondent's operation was submitted by National Society of Pro-
fessional Engineers as amicus curiae.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCul-
loch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision and the
entire record in this case,' including the exceptions, the brief of the
Respondent, and the brief of the amicus curiae, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders
that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument Is hereby denied because the record, the
exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues involved herein.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Antecedent Representation Case; Case No. 13-RC-10037
After the usual proceedings under Section 9 of the Act in which the Respondent
was represented by counsel and fully participated, the Regional Director, Region 13,
National Labor Relations Board, at Chicago, Illinois, issued a Decision and Direction
of Election among the following employees whom he found constituted a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
151 NLRB No. 109.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All rodmen, instrument men, party chiefs, and area chiefs employed by National
Survey Service, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; excluding all office and plant clerical employ-
ees, inspectors, design engineers, draftsmen, computers, guards, and all supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
Pursuant to Section 102 67(b) and (c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Respondent thereafter filed a request for review of the Re-
gional Director's Decision and Direction of Election with the Board in Washington,
D.C, in which it challenged the Regional Director's assertion of jurisdiction over the
Respondent's land surveying operations as not only being an abuse of his discretion-
ary authority but also beyond his power as a matter of law. By Order dated June 16,
1964, the Board denied the Respondent's request for review on the ground that it
raised no substantial issues warranting review.
A secret-ballot election among the employees in the above-stated unit was con-
ducted under the supervision of the Regional Director on June 17, 1964. Of the
six ballots cast, three were cast for the Union, one against the Union, and there were
two challenged ballots, those of Robert Stevens and Nicholas Raimondi.
Thereafter, the Respondent duly filed objections to conduct affecting the results
-of the election in which the Respondent alleged that while the election was being
-conducted in the Board's Regional Office two of the Union's organizers engaged in
"electioneering" in the immediate vicinity of the polling place and had access to at
least four of the six employees who voted in the election. After an administrative
investigation conducted by the Acting Regional Director, in which he considered the
Respondent's objections and also the question whether the Union's challenge of the
ballot cast by Nicholas Raimondi, which was made on the theory that Raimondi was
a supervisor, the Acting Regional Director, on July 9, 1964, issued a supplemental
decision and certification of representatives. In this supplemental decision, the Act-
ing Regional Director overruled the Respondent's objections based upon the conduct
of the two union organizers during the election and overruled the challenge of the
ballot of Robert Stevens, but sustained the challenge to the ballot of Nicholas
Raimondi, holding that Raimondi was a supervisor. Consultant with his conclusions
concerning the Respondent's objections to the election and his ruling excluding
Raimondi's ballot from consideration, and having ascertained that the Union had
obtained a majority of the ballots cast (Stevens' ballot was not opened and counted
since it could not affect the outcome of the election), the Acting Regional Director
certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees
in the unit stated above.
Thereafter, the Respondent duly filed a request for ieview of the Acting Regional
Director's supplemental decision and certification of representatives in which it (1)
renewed its objection to the election based upon the Union's alleged electioneering
in the vicinity of the polling place during the election, and (2) challenged the
Regional Director's determination that Nicholas Raimondi was a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. In connection with point (2) above, the
Respondent urged that the Regional Director committed prejudicial error when he
considered an affidavit submitted by Raimondi in deciding the question of Raimondi's
supervisory status, since Raimondi was not made available to it for cross-examination.
On August 14, 1964, the Board denied the Respondent's request for review upon the
ground that it raised no substantial issue warranting review.
The Instant Unfair Labor Practice Case, Case No. 13-CA-6673
Upon a charge filed by the Union on September 17, 1964, the Regional Director,
Region 13, issued a complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, con-
taining the usual allegations regarding the filing and service of the charge, the allega-
tions of fact upon which the assertion of jurisdiction is premised, the allegation
regarding the Union's status as a labor organization, and an allegation concerning
the unit appropriate for collective-bargainning purposes, which was the unit deter-
mined by the Acting Regional Director in his supplemental decision and certification
of representatives. In paragraph VI, the complaint alleged that by virtue of the elec-
tion and the Acting Regional Director's certification of the Union, that the Union is,
and at all times since July 1964, has been, the exclusive representative for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining of the employees in the alleged appropriate unit. Para-
graph VII alleges the Union's continuing request to the Respondent to bargain col-
lectively, commencing on or about August 31, 1964, and paragraph VIII alleges
the Respondent's continuing refusal to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the alleged appropriate unit, com-
mencing on or about September 4, 1964. Paragraphs IX, X, and XI of the com-
NATIONAL SURVEY SERVICE, IN, C. 785
plaint contain the usual conclusory allegations that the conduct alleged in paragraph
VIII constitutes unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On November 6, 1964, the Respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which
it admitted the allegations of the complaint regarding the filing and service of the
charge, the jurisdictional facts, the Union's status as a labor organization, and the
appropriate unit. In its answer the Respondent also admitted the allegations of
paragraphs VII and VIII of the complaint regarding the Union's request to bargain
collectively and the Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively, except that the
Respondent averred that its refusal to bargain collectively commenced on or about
October 15, 1964, rather than on or about September 4, 1964, as alleged in the
complaint.
Regarding paragraph VI of the complaint, the Respondent's answer admits the
facts concerning the election and the Acting Regional Director's certification of the
Union, but alleged that said Acting Regional Director's action was "illegal" and the
certification "null and void."
In its answer the Respondent denied all of the conclusory allegations of the com-
plaint, including allegation that the unfair labor practices complained of affected
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On November 19, 1964, counsel for the General Counsel filed with the Regional
Director a motion for judgment on the pleadings . Thereafter, the Respondent filed
a document entitled "Suggestions in Response to Motion for Judgment on the Plead-
ings" in which it urged that the General Counsel's motion was premature and
requested an opportunity to present oral argument before the Trial Examiner han-
dling the case. The General Counsel's motion and the Respondent's "Suggestions"
were duly referred for disposition to Trial Examiner Owsley Vose, who had in the
meantime been designated as the Trial Examiner to hear the case
On December 4, 1964, the Trial Examiner issued a telegraphic order directing the
Respondent on or before December 14, 1964, to state what, if any, issues it proposed
to tender herein other than those already decided by the Board when it denied the
Respondent's two requests for review and to give the general nature of the facts
proposed to be adduced. In this order, the Trial Examiner postponed indefinitely
the hearing which was scheduled for December 14, 1964, and denied the Respond-
ent's request for oral argument on the motion. However, the Trial Examiner in the
order afforded the Respondent an opportunity to file a brief, if it so desired.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed its response to the Trial Examiner's order of
December 4, 1964, and an amended answer. In its response the Respondent stated
as follows:
Respondent requests a hearing in order to show that the objections to the
election should have been sustained and/or the challenge to the ballot of
Raimondi should not have been sustained . In the absence of such a hearing,
the previous ex parte "administrative investigation " provides no basis for find-
ings of unfair labor practices.
In its amended answer, the Respondent added an "additional defense," which was
not included in the original answer, in which it argued that "the Acting Regional
Director 's rulings on objections and challenges contained in the Supplemental Deci-
sion and Certification of Representatives in Case No. 13-RC-10037 was based upon
an ex parte `administrative investigation' thus depriving Respondent of a hearing,"
that therefore the certification was contrary to "the provisions of the Act, the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act, [and] the Due Process Clause of the United States Con-
stitution." The Respondent did not request leave to file a brief.
The Respondent's amended answer and its response to the Trial Examiner's Order
of December 4, 1964, establish that the Respondent proposes to raise in this unfair
labor practice case precisely the issues which it raised in the representation case and
which were considered by the Board when it denied the Respondent's two requests
for review, including the issue concerning whether the Board, consistent with the
provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, the administrative Procedure Act,
and the Constitution of the United States, could take Raimondi's affidavit into con-
sideration in resolving the question of Raimondi's supervisory status without afford-
ing the Respondent a formal hearing for the purpose of taking testimony and exam-
ining and cross-examining witnesses.
It is well settled that such issues which were raised in the representation case may
not be litigated in the subsequent unfair labor practice case . The Trial Examiner is
bound by the Board's action regarding such matters. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
783-13 3-66-vol 151-51
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 161-162; N.L.R.B. v. West Kentucky Coal Company,
152 F. 2d 198, 200-201 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 328 U.S. 866; Allis-Chalmers Manu-
facturing Company . N.L.R.B., 162 F. 2d 435 (C.A. 7); Esquire, Inc. (Coronet
Instructional Films Division), 109 NLRB 530, 539, enfd. 222 F. 2d 253 (C.A. 7);
N.L.R.B. v. Burroughs Corporation, 261 F. 2d 463, 465-466 (C.A. 2); Quaker City
Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 61, enfd., 319 2d 690 (C.A. 4); Brown Lumber
Co., 143 NLRB 174, 175, 177; Continental Bus System, Inc. d/b/a Continental
Rocky Mountain Lines, Inc., 138 NLRB 894; Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229;
Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co., 140 NLRB 1412, 1413; The Mountain States
Telephone and Telegraph Company, 136 NLRB 1612, 1615. Under the doctrine of
these decisions evidence relating to issues decided in the representation proceeding
may be received in the subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding only if it was
previously unavailable or if it relates to events subsequent to the Board' s determina-
tion in the representation proceeding. See Singer Sewing Machine Company v.
N.L.R.B., 329 F. 2d 200, 204 (C.A. 4).
Since it appears from the Respondent's amended answer and the other documents
filed by it in this case that the Respondent does not propose to offer any evidence
in this case which the Trial Examiner would be permitted to receive in evidence, a
formal hearing would serve no useful purpose in this case.
While in the Examiner's opinion the Board has already considered the Respond-
ent's contention that the Acting Regional Director could not properly rule upon the
Respondent's objection to the election and upon the challenged ballot of Raimondi
merely upon the basis of an administrative investigation, without affording the
Respondent a formal hearing, and hence this issue also is not open before me in
this proceeding, it may be observed that the Acting Regional Director acted only
after considering all of the evidence offered by all the parties, including the affidavit
of the Respondent's president, I. S. Pasquinelli, and Nicholas Raimondi, and that
the Respondent in its second request for review did not take issue with any of the
facts set forth in the Acting Regional Director's supplemental decision and certifica-
tion of representatives. On the contrary, the Respondent in its second request for
review relied on the facts set forth in the Pasquinelli and Raimondi affidavits, but
urged that they required the legal conclusion that Raimondi was not a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Similarly, with respect to the
Respondent's objection based on the Union's alleged "electioneering," the Respond-
ent in its second request for review merely disputed the Acting Regional Director's
legal conclusions flowing from the facts set forth in his supplemental decision and
certification of representatives and did not take issue with the facts as set forth by
the Acting Regional Director.
Nor has the Respondent in the documents filed with the Trial Examiner in this
case declared the facts with regard to either the Union's alleged "electioneering" or
Raimondi's supervisory status to be otherwise than as stated in the supplemental deci-
sion and certification of representatives. Rather the Respondent's position seems to
be that regardless of the facts, it is entitled to a hearing as a matter of right because
administrative investigations, which in this case included obtaining and considering
the Pasquinelli and Raimondi affidavits, are violative of the provisions of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution. In
the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the Respondent's position is erroneous. Neither
of the above-mentioned statutes nor the Constitution requires a hearing for the
purpose of taking testimony where there are no factual issues to decide. As stated
by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, "Neither the statute, nor the Con-
stitution gives a hearing where there is no issue to decide. . . . The Constitution
protects procedural regularity, not as an end in itself, but as a means of defending
substantive interests ." Charles Fay etc. v. Douds, 172, F. 2d 720, 725 (C.A. 2). In
accord are Producers etc. Assn. v. United States 241 F. 2d 192, 196 (C.A. 10), affd.
356 U.S. 282, and N.L.R.B. v. Tidelands Marine Service, Inc., 339 F. 2d (C.A. 5),
57 LRRM 2580, 2582-2583. See N.L.R.B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 133 F. 2d 876,
882 (C.A. 3), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 751; N.LR.B. v. National Munecal Co., 134
F. 2d 424, 426 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 320 U.S. 753.
To sum up, the Respondent in its amended answer has admitted its continuing
refusal to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of employees in a
unit which the Respondent admits is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The only issues which the Respondent seeks to raise in this case-the ques-
tion of the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over the Respondent, and the question of
the propriety of the Acting Regional Director's disposition of the Respondent's objec-
tions to the election and the challenge of Raimondi's ballot-are issues which have
NATIONAL SURVEY SERVICE, INC. 787
been considered by the Board and therefore are not open before me. Although
afforded an opportunity to state the issues which it proposes to raise herein, the
Respondent has not raised any issue which is properly triable in this unfair labor
practice case.
In these circumstances it is appropriate to grant counsel for the General Counsel's
motion for judgment on the pleading. KVP Sutherland Paper Company-Sutherland
Division, 143 NLRB 834, 836-837; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 148
NLRB 1471; Equitable Life Insurance Company, 149 NLRB 359. Said motion for
judgment on the pleadings is hereby granted and, in accordance with the prayer
of said motion, the Trial Examiner, upon the basis of the allegations of the com-
plaint and of the Respondent's amended answer, and upon the entire record in the
case, hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, having its office and principal place
of business at Chicago , Illinois , is engaged in the operation of a land surveying
service. In the course of its operations during the past calendar year, the Respond-
ent performed services valued in excess of $50,000, of which services valued in the
amount of $7,355 were performed outside Illinois. Additional services valued at
$36,921 were performed for various enterprises, each of which annually produces
and ships or performs services valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State in which
said enterprises are located. Additional services valued at $7,400 were performed
for the city of Chicago, Department of Urban Renewal, a governmental agency,
which is a recipient of substantial Federal funds and is part of a nationwide Federal
program.
2. The Union is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All rodmen, instrument men, party chiefs, and area chiefs employed by Respond-
ent at its Chicago, Illinois, place of business, but excluding all office and plant cler-
ical employees, inspectors, design engineers, draftsmen, computers, guards, and all
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
4. On or about June 17, 1964, a majority of the employees of the Respondent in
the unit stated above, by a secret ballot election conducted under the supervision of
the Regional Director, Region 13, National Labor Relations Board, in Case No.
13-RC-10037, designated and selected the Union as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Respondent, and on or about July 9, 1964,
said Regional Director certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the said unit
5. At all times since on or about July 1964, and continuing to date, the Union has
been the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in
the unit stated above, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
6. Commencing on or about August 31, 1964, the Union requested the Respond-
ent to bargain collectively with it with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the said
unit.
7. Commencing on or about October 15, 1964, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent did refuse, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the said
unit.
8. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the said unit on October 15, 1964,
and thereafter, the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, hereby orders
that the Respondent, National Survey Service, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local
Union 130, U.A. Technical Division, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit-
All rodmen, instrument men, party chiefs, and area chiefs employed by Respond-
ent at its Chicago, Illinois, place of business, but excluding all office and plant cler-
ical employees, inspectors, design engineers, draftsmen, computers, guards, and all
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of the Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local
Union 130, U.A. Technical Division, AFL-CIO, to negotiate for or represent the
employees in the said appropriate unit as the exclusive bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local
Union 130, U.A. Technical Division, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit described in paragraph 1(a), above, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its Chicago, Illinois, office, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respond-
ent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable 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 Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taen to comply herewith?
3. The notice of hearing in this proceeding is hereby vacated and set aside.
IIn the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be en-
forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"a Decision and Order."
2 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
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, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively with Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local
Union 130, U.A. Technical Division , AFL-CIO, as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in the appropriate unit described below:
All rodmen, instrument men, party chiefs, and area chiefs employed by
Respondent at our Chicago , Illinois, place of business , but excluding all
office and plant clerical employees , inspectors , design engineers, draftsmen,
computers , guards, and all supervisors , as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Chicago Journeymen Plumbers'
Local Union 130, U.A. Technical Division , AFL-CIO, to negotiate for, or rep-
resent as exclusive bargaining representative of, the employees in the bargaining
unit stated above.
NATIONAL SURVEY SERVICE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------------------
By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
EMPLE KNITTING MILLS 789
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered , by any other material. .
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illinois,
Telephone No. 828-7572 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Emple Knitting Mills and International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers Union , AFL-CIO. Case No.. 1-CA-4730. March 18, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor, prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision, with a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the Board hereby adopts the Order recommended by the
Trial Examiner and orders Respondent Emple Knitting Mills,
Brewer, Maine, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'We correct the following inadvertent errors, in the Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Respondent 's executive vice president is named Nass , not Ness. The date upon which
the Union attained majority status in the appropriate unit is August 3, 1964, not
August 3, 1963 , as the Trial Examiner states at one point.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before Trial Examiner
Thomas A. Ricci , on December 8, 1964, at Boston, Massachusetts , on complaint of
151 NLRB No. 92.