Public Service Co.of New Mexico

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1476 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Fourth Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York, Telephone
No. 596-5386, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Public Service Company of New Mexico and Paul W. Stein. Case
No. g8-CA-1097. July 15,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 16, 1965 , Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent
had not engaged in the unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. Thereafter, the
Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
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 Charging Party's exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings , conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner , " but only to the
extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found , and we agree , that Stein , the Charging
Party, was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We further
agree that the Respondent did not violate the Act by discharging Stein
in the circumstances of this case . In reaching this conclusion , we rely
solely on the fact that Stein was a supervisor and that he was dis-
charged because of insubordination and bad relations with Garrison,
his own superior.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
'The Charging Panty has excepted to the credibility findings made by the Tiial Exam-
iner It is the Board's established policy, however, not to overrule a Taal Examiner's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the piepondeiance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions wcie incorrect Standard Dig
Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
The Charging Party also contends that the Trial Examiner's Decision was based upon
bias and prejudice and moved that the case be remanded foi rehearing Upon our review
of the entire record, however, we find that these contentions are without merit, and, ac-
coi dingly, deny the motion for rehearing
153 NLRB No. 109.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO 1477
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed June 1, 1964, by Paul W. Stein, an individual, herein called
Stein, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, issued a complaint dated July 24, 1964, alleging that Public Service Company
of New Mexico, herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, by discharging Stein.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing in this matter was held before Trial Examiner
E. Don Wilson at Albuquerque, New Mexico, on September 22 and 23, 1964. Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent fully participated. Briefs have been received and
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all material times Respondent has been a corporation and public utility existing
under the laws of New Mexico. It maintains places of business in Albuquerque, and
in other towns and cities in New Mexico. It transmits, distributes, and sells electric
power throughout New Mexico. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of
the complaint, it received from customers in New Mexico revenue in excess of
$250,000 and purchased and received from outside the State, materials valued in
excess of $50,000
Respondent at material times has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1
A. The issues
The issues include (1) was Stein a supervisor within the meaning of the Act;
(2) was he discharged because of protected concerted activities; and (3) was he
discharged because of union activities?
i In finding facts in this section I generally have not credited Stein's testimony where
it has not been corroborated by otherwise corroborated testimony His demeanor im-
pressed me unfavorably During his testimony he revealed that hope of reward dictated,
at least on occasion, whether he was willing to tell a deliberate untruth At this hear-
ing he testified he was not discharged because he had had differences with Supervisor
Boyce Garrison. He denied that he was disgruntled at not getting Garrison's job Yet,
within a few days after his discharge by Respondent, he told the unemployment commis-
sion in New Mexico, in his own handwriting, that Garrison got the supervisor's job which
had been promised to him and that Garrison had to ask Stein "all about the job" He
added that he "resented the fact [he] hadn't been promoted and that resulted in a person-
ality clash between [him] and new boss Because of the clash [he] was released"
Stein testified that these ante titans motam statements against his present interest were
not true He said he made them to gain sympathy from Respondent and not have his
application for unemployment compensation opposed He testified there, in fact, was
no personality clash, but he stated there was and made the other false statements be-
cause he was out of a job and needed $36 per week compensation I reject as another of
his fabrications that he would not have made such statements to the unemployment com-
mission if he had been placed under oath I find that Stein, in his testimony, was motivated
not by a desire to tell the truth but solely by what he considered his best interest in
this case.
I have found Charles A. Ruiz to be an honest but not always reliable witness The
record makes clear he has considerable difficulty with expressing his thoughts or commu-
nicating, and indicates that his memory for other than broad generalities is not dependable.
Dave Wheelock was a candid witness and I credit his testimony.
Garrison's demeanor impressed me favorably He appeared to me to be a completely
frank and honest witness who was interested only in telling the truth as he remembered
it I credit his testimony in full, although I find that on occasion he sometimes used the
plural when he intended the singular
Ben Fields appeared to be an honest and reliable witness, although I find Garrison had
a more complete recollection of what happentd on April 1.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Background
Respondent's Albuquerque service center, storehouse, or warehouse, herein called
warehouse, is the situs of the events involved herein. At the warehouse, J. A.
Crawley had for years been the storekeeper or supervisor. Boyce Garrison, after
serving an apprenticeship under Crawley, succeeded him as supervisor in October
1963. Under Garrison were Stein, whose title was store clerk, and four warehouse-
men who performed the manual work required in the warehouse.
Late in 1963 or early in 1964 2 the Teamsters and the IBEW 3 were competing for
representative status among the warehouse employees. Stein was a Teamsters sup-
porter and strong and open opponent of the IBEW. Early in 1964 the IBEW was
certified as bargaining representative, after a Board election. Relations between
Stein and some of the warehousemen became strained during and after the unions'
competition, because of their respective beliefs in the merits of the unions, and some
of their discussions became heated. Earlier and around or about the same time,
Stein had more than heated arguments with others in the warehouse; e.g., one ware-
houseman, Blair, had two serious encounters with Stein in February. According to
Stein, warehousemen other than Ruiz would not talk to him and shunned him.
Garrison was not antiunion and attempted at various times to establish harmony
among the employees; indeed, he warned them that if "they" could not get along
with each other he would get "someone" who could.
It seemed to Garrison that Stein, with 7 years' experience in the warehouse,
resented Garrison's getting the job of supervisor. It appeared to him that Stein did
his work grudgingly. Toward April 1, Stein, who shared Garrison's office, hardly
talked to Garrison and Garrison hardly talked to Stein. According to Garrison's
credited testimony, "It got to the place where you could feel the tension in the room."
C. April 1 and Stein's discharge
1. Stein's status on April 1
Already noted has been Stein's strained relations with the warehousemen before
April 1. It is clear that his principal occupation was that of clerk. He occasionally
assisted warehousemen in performance of their manual duties. It is plain that at
material times and particularly since October 1963, Garrison was absent from the
warehouse on an average of 8 hours of a 40-hour week .4 In his absence, Stein was
in charge of the warehouse. Stein described himself as "in charge of the supervision
of the men" and the "general flow of the work." He said he was "responsible for
the operation of the warehouse during Mr. Garrison's absence" and Garrison told
all the other employees they were to do what Stein asked them to do. Stein testified
that when Garrison was absent, about 1 day a week, it was Stein's responsibility to
run the warehouse " in an orderly manner, asking the men to do certain things that
had to be done to control the regular flow of work," and sometimes things were not
routine. Stein's testimony as to his responsibility in Garrison's absence is corrobo-
rated by the testimony of Garrison. Stein was paid $40 per month more than the
warehousemen, which was due in part to Stein's responsibilities as store clerk and
in part to the fact that he was responsible for the warehouse in Garrison's absence.
Shortly after Garrison became the supervisor he called the warehousemen and Stein
together and told them that Stein was in charge in Garrison's absence; "that they
should cooperate with him just like they would with me if I were there." The ware-
housemen were told that Stein was "responsible for the operation" of the warehouse
in Garrison's absence. In Garrison's absence, Stein had authority to tell any avail-
able warehouseman to do whatever work had to be done. Stein did direct the opera-
tions of the warehousemen in Garrison's absence.
I find that Stein, on an average of about 8 hours of a 40-hour week, had authority
responsibly to direct the four warehousemen and that he was a supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The exercise of his authority was not merely
routine nor of a clerical nature and it required Stein to exercise his independent
judgment. It is not reasonable to assume that during 20 percent of the working week
when Stein was in sole charge of the warehouse, matters of a nonroutine nature did
not arise, and it is clear that Stein's authority and responsibility extended to all direc-
tions of the warehousemen in Garrison's absence.5 The warehousemen were to
3 Hereinafter all dates refer to 1964, unless otherwise stated.
3International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 611.
4 Giving talks, etc.
511e must also have dealt responsibly with those seeking to do business with the
warehouse
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO 1479
cooperate with Stein 's direction just as they would with that of Garrison . The author-
ity given to Stein clearly called for him to exercise independent judgment. There
was no one else present upon whom he could depend . It is not reasonable to find
that in Garrison 's absence , Respondent expected anarchy.
2. The April 1 events
On the morning of April 1 , Garrison reprimanded Charles A. Ruiz , a warehouse-
man, for poor work. Ruiz believed that a part of the basis for the reprimand was
his failure properly to discharge his duties with respect to highline material. About
10 a in., Ruiz asked Stein why he had to know highline material when the other three
warehousemen , who received the same pay , allegedly did not have to have such
knowledge . Stein went into the office he shared with Garrison and borrowed a book
from Garrison 's desk 6 and went to coffee with Ruiz . At coffee, Stein and Ruiz
unsuccessfully examined the book so as to obtain an answer for Ruiz.7
After lunch , around 1 p .m., Stein and Ruiz observed Garrison and Ben Fields
enter Garrison 's office. Fields was office manager of Respondent 's Albuquerque
division and Garrison 's immediate supervisor . Ruiz said to Stein he'd like Stein to
help him "get his point across" to Garrison and Fields . 8 Stein agreed to help him.
Stein entered the office alone and sat at his desk . Garrison was seated at his desk
talking to Fields, who was standing . Ruiz then entered alone , holding a clamp in his
hand. Ruiz addressed a question to Garrison , or Garrison and Fields , about the
clamp. He probably received an answer . Ruiz, at no time, said anything about
working on highline material . Stein spoke up and said he thought Garrison was
treating Ruiz unfairly and Ruiz was being imposed upon by Garrison because he had
to know highline material and the other warehousemen didn't. The credited testi-
mony of Garrison and Fields makes clear that Stein was addressing his remarks pri-
marily to Fields and not Garrison . This took Garrison by surprise that Stein "went
right straight to Mr. Fields over [Garrison 's] head" and Garrison said nothing . Fields
said it wouldn 't be too difficult for Ruiz to deal with highline materials if he'd use
a catalogue . Ruiz left the room having said nothing other than his initial remark
about the clamp. Stein said nothing further. There is no evidence that Fields or
Garrison had any thought or suspicion that Stein charged Garrison with unfair treat-
ment at the request of Ruiz or in Ruiz' behalf . Indeed, Ruiz never had asked Stein
to make such a charge.9 As Ruiz testified , "Evidentally Mr. Fields and Mr. Garrison
were not aware that I had asked Mr. Stein to speak for me in case I couldn't get my
point across ." I specifically find that neither Garrison nor Fields had such knowl-
edge. I find no substantial evidence that Garrison or Fields had reasonable cause
to believe Stein made his remarks in the office in behalf of any one other than himself.
Very shortly after Ruiz left the office , Garrison and Fields left. While they were
gone, David Wheelock, a journeyman meterman employed by Respondent , entered
the warehouse and proceeded to a scrap pile to get a used aluminum reflector. On
the way he spoke to two warehousemen who were aware of the purpose of his visit,
and who made no effort to stop him . Respondent had a rule that no one was to enter
the warehouse area unless accompanied or escorted by warehouse personnel.
Wheelock went to the scrap pile without an escort , though one of the warehousemen
had suggested that he look at the scrap pile . Stein observed Wheelock in the ware-
house without an escort and approached Wheelock, asking him what he was doing
without an escort There ensued a very heated argument between Stein and Wheelock,
the details of which need not be related . It may be noted that Stein reprimanded
Wheelock for being without an escort , adding Garrison " isn't here and I 'm in charge
when [Garrison] is not here ." Further, the argument got so heated that, according
to Stein , after Wheelock got personal , "I asked him if he wanted to go outside and
he said no and I said fine." 10
During the latter part of this argument , Garrison approached within about 50 feet
and heard the loud talking , although he could not distinguish the words . Then, or
a short time later, he inquired of warehousemen Meagher and Ruiz what had hap-
pened and received reports. He went to the office and asked Stein what had hap-
pened. Stein gave his story . He then told Stein he shouldn 't have jumped on
Wheelock but should have used a little more tact . Garrison then spoke to Wheelock
I In Garrison 's presence
71 find it significant that Stein did not ask Garrison if he were interested in Ruiz'
problem
8 Referring to his highline material problem
6 Ruiz only wanted the answer to his question about highline materials.
101 find the suggestion to go outside was for the purpose of fighting , physically.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to get his account. Wheelock gave it and admitted he was partly to blame. In the
meanwhile, Stein went out to coffee and Garrison returned to the office. Garrison
credibly testified that he decided he could not continue to have such scenes and he
had to come to an agreement with Stein. He had not then decided to terminate Stein.
When Stein returned to the office, Garrison began the conversation by saying, "So
you think I'm treating Charley [Ruiz] unfairly." Stein said Garrison was correct,
since Ruiz had to know all the highline material and the other warehousemen didn't
Garrison explained it was necessary to do this and he had to run things as he saw fit
and in his way. Garrison further explained that he felt Stein's attitudes were wrong
and he should try to look at things differently, and he and Stein had a different out-
look Stein asked Garrison who he was to be talking about psychology, that Stein
had had two years of psychology in college and he should be telling Garrison about it.
Garrison told Stein it appeared they couldn't get together as a team and he asked
Stein for his resignation. Stein asked if he was fired and Garrison told him he was.
There was some talk about Stein seeing someone with greater authority. Stein used
a vulgar epithet about the Respondent and another one about "some people," obvi-
ously referring to Garrison.
Concluding Findings
General Counsel contends that Stein was discharged because he and Ruiz engaged
in concerted activities on April 1, when Stein charged Garrison with treating Ruiz
unfairly. He further contends Stein was discharged because of his union activities
in presenting a first-step grievance to Respondent under the terms of a contract
between the IBEW and Respondent." The last contention will be considered first.
Section 3a of the contract between IBEW and Respondent reads as follows:
On-the-Job Disputes or Grievances. When a dispute or difference arises, the
employee and supervisor concerned shall immediately attempt to settle the dis-
pute or difference. If the employee and supervisor fail to settle the dispute or
difference, either party may request the Department Steward and in such case
use every reasonable means to call the Department Steward to the scene; or in
the absence of the Department Steward, another Steward may be called to obtain
all the details and if possible to settle the dispute or difference. If neither the
employee nor the supervisor requests the Steward, the dispute or difference shall
be considered as settled and no cause for a grievance. No employee shall be
discriminated against for invoking this procedure in a reasonable dispute or
difference.
Ruiz was the employee concerned and Garrison was the supervisor concerned
under section 3a of the contract. Plainly, under the contract, it was up to Ruiz to
attempt to settle his dispute or difference with Garrison. There is no contract provi-
sion which would call for. or permit, Ruiz to attempt to settle his dispute or difference
through the intervention of Stein, who was not even a steward I find no evidence
that Ruiz or Stein even thought of the contract at the time Stein told Fields that
Garrison was treating Ruiz unfairly.'" I find that Stein was not presenting Ruiz'
grievance under the contract, but rather was going over Garrison's head so as to
disparage him to Fields. Further, there is no provision in section 3a of the contract
which would permit Ruiz, let alone Stein in his behalf, to address the first step of the
grievance to Fields rather than Garrison, as Stein did here. Finally, I have found
Stein was a supervisor and I fail to see how a discharge of a supervisor for "present-
ing a grievance" to the management of which he was a part would illustrate to rank-
and-file employees that Respondent would discharge them for filing or presenting
a grievance',; Certainly management is not to sit on both sides of the table in
resolving contract grievances any more than in contract negotiations. Thus, I find
no merit to General Counsel's contention that Stein was unlawfully discharged for
engaging in "union" activities.
Considering now the question of whether Stein was unlawfully discharged for
engaging in protected concerted activities with Ruiz, I find he was not.
Stein was a supervisor Since only he and employee Ruiz were involved in the
so-called grievance, I find there were no concerted activities within the meaning of
Section 7 of the Act Section 7 refers to the rights of "employees" to engage in con-
certed activities Here, there was only one "employee" concerned with or active in
"The complaint does not allege that IBEW. Local Union No 611, is a labor organiza-
tion The contract is in evidence and it is clear that at least when executed, the IBEW
was a labor organization There is no doubt that Stein was not a steward for the THEW
iz The record makes clear that Stein was prejudiced against the IBEW.
13 Cf. Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764, 767
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO 1481
connection with Ruiz' grievance and that was Ruiz I do not here consider what the
situation would be had Stein engaged in activities with two or more employees who
were acting in concert for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection. I do find that in connection with Ruiz' question, "employees" did
not act in concert The very most that could be urged by General Counsel is that
a supervisor and an employee acted in concert, and such is not protected by Section 7
of the Act. Further, Ruiz' problem was shared in no way by Stein. It was none of
his concern, excepting as a supervisor, whether Ruiz was or was not the only ware-
houseman required to handle highlme material. His testimony that he had a
concern similar to Ruiz because he might have to learn about highline material in
connection with his clerical work, if Ruiz were required to work on it, is entirely
speculative and is not believed Thus, I find Stein and Ruiz were not acting for
"mutual" aid and protection. Ruiz was acting for the purpose of being relieved of
the obligation to handle highline material, or at least to have what he considered the
burden shared by the other three warehousemen. Stein was acting for the purpose
of embarrassing Garrison in the presence of his supervisor, Fields.
Assuming Stein to have been an employee and assuming further that he was acting
in concert with Ruiz for their mutual aid or protection, arguendo, the fact remains
that Garrison had no knowledge they were acting in concert. There was every legiti-
mate reason for Garrison to believe that Stein, who was sitting quietly at his desk
when Ruiz entered the office, injected his disparaging opinion of how Garrison dealt
with Ruiz, solely out of malice. No one, including Ruiz, had asked Stein, in Garrison's
presence, to say anything. His expressed opinion to Fields of Garrison's treatment
of Ruiz had not the faintest association with anything that Ruiz had asked about the
clamp or anything Ruiz said. I have already found that for some time prior to this,
relations between Garrison and Stein had been at least tense, and it would be reason-
able for Garrison to believe, in the circumstances of this case, that Stein was merely
a volunteer intruder. In light of Stein's very bad relations with the warehousemen,
it would not be expected that Stein would assist any one of them. Not knowing of
Stein's assumed protected concerted activities, Respondent could not have discharged
him because of them.
I find Garrison discharged Stein because Stein became insubordinate when Gar-
rison was speaking to him after the Wheelock incident on April 1. Having observed
Garrison, and based upon the entire record, I am convinced he did not intend to dis-
charge Stein when he began his conversation with Stein during which the termina-
tion became a fact. I find that while Stein was out to coffee Garrison reviewed in his
mind at least some of his experiences with Stein, including the Wheelock incident
and Stein's charge to Fields. He determined to talk to Stein in the hope of achieving
some meeting of the minds so that they could function harmoniously for the good
of Respondent's operations. In his conversation with Stein he took a reasonable
approach, even to explaining that things would have to be run his way. It was rea-
sonable for him to suggest to Stein that his attitudes were wrong and that he should
try to look at things differently, particularly in light of Stein's past relations with the
warehousemen and Garrison and his immediate past encounter with Wheelock.
Garrison was entitled, as Stein's superior, to a reasonable response. Instead, Stein's
reply was insolent and surly. His braggadocio about having had 2 years of college
during which he had studied psychology, and his statement that he should be talking
to Garrison about attitudes rather than vice versa, as might be expected in the cir-
cumstances, prompted Garrison to ask for Stein's resignation and then to discharge
Stein. Stein wasn't content with matters as they then stood and made no effort to
mend his fences and perhaps continue on, but rather he threatened to see a person
in management even higher than Garrison and Fields When Garrison took him up
on this, Stein used a not too uncommon vulgar expression in describing Respondent.
He also indicated that he believed Garrison had been placed in charge of the ware-
house for the purpose of getting rid of Stein. I find the proximate course of the dis-
charge of Stein was his insolent and surly attitude to Garrison when Garrison, in a
reasonable and calm manner, was attempting to get Stein to conduct himself in a
cooperative manner. There is insufficient probative evidence to establish that Stein
would have been discharged had he not told Garrison that Stein should be talking
to Garrison about attitudes and psychology rather than Garrison talking to Stein.
Finally, I conclude there is insufficient substantial evidence to establish that Stein,
at any time, engaged in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection within the
meaning of the Act, or that he engaged in IBEW activities 14 or that he was dis-
charged because he engaged in protected concerted activities or in union activities.
14 Excepting in opposition to the IBEW
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is, and at material times has been , an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The record does not establish that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor
practices, or any of them, alleged in the amended complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record, it is recommended that the Board enter an order dismissing the
complaint.
Local 378, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO and Waldbaum , Inc. Case No. 29-
CP-7. July 16,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 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 brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations 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 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders
that Respondent, Local 378, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec-
ommended Order.
153 NLRB No. 130.