Union Boiler Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 818 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union Boiler Company and Kenneth Robert Bee. Case
6-CA-7084
October 3, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On May 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Ivar
H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed a
statement in lieu of exceptions and a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions, statement
in lieu of exceptions, and briefs, and has decided to
affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consis-
tent herewith.
The complaint alleges that four employees were
discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
for engaging in a protected work stoppage, the focus
of which was job safety. The Administrative Law
Judge found, based on uncontradicted testimony, that
the employees discussed the safety of the job and
decided that it was not safe to work on this particular
job any more that day. The job in question was clean-
ing the inside of a 160-foot high fly ash silo and re-
quired employees to be lowered into the silo in a skip
bucket through a small hatch at the top. Uncontro-
verted is the evidence that because of weather condi-
tions the visibility was unusually poor that day and
the employees standing at the top of the silo were
having difficulty in properly signaling the crane oper-
ator who was required to raise and lower the employ-
ees inside the silo. In fact, as the Administrative Law
Judge found, the employees "felt the job was unsafe
to continue because of the slipperiness of the roof
deck, the lack of visibility from inside the silo in find-
ing the hatch, and the problem of communicating
signals to the crane man because of the darkness,
inclement weather and fly ash dust blowing around
the crane area." The Administrative Law Judge con-
cluded, however, that the employees left the job not
because of safety conditions but because they object-
ed to working overtime that day, and that they were
therefore not discharged for engaging in protected
concerted activity.
We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions.
The Administrative Law Judge drew too much, in our
opinion, from the testimony of Evans, a supervisor for
the power company for whom Respondent was doing
this job under contract. We do not disturb the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's finding that Evans was a credi-
ble witness. We note, however, that his conclusion
about the employees' motivation rests in part on the
fact that when Evans talked to some of them around
3 p.m. about working overtime, one of them said he
intended to go home at the regular time and no one
complained about the conditions being unsafe. Ac-
cepting this as fact, it is undisputed that the men
subsequently undertook to work overtime and that at
the time of the earlier conversation they had not yet
begun the silo-cleaning. Their credited testimony was
that it was only after that job had been underway for
some time that they became concerned over the safety
conditions. Moreover, their failure to complain ex-
pressly to management about safety would not render
their action unprotected if, as we find, safety was their
reason for refusing to continue the job.'
Neither are we persuaded by the Administrative
Law Judge's finding that the work was subsequently
completed by other members of the complainants'
union 2 "who worked under the same conditions on
the same job and did not refuse to do the work." Since
the physical conditions on the day in question were
unusually bad, there is no justification, in our view,
for finding that other employees completed the job
under the same conditions even if the method of oper-
ation was the same. In fact the record evidence is that
on only one occasion thereafter was work done inside
the silo after dark and on that occasion the lighting
was good. But beyond that, the issue here is not the
objective measure of safety conditions, it is whether
these employees left their jobs because they thought
conditions were unsafe. They could not have been
penalized for so doing just because other employees
tolerated such conditions or because, by some exter-
nal standard, they were too safety conscious.'
Regarding the employees' motivation, it is not nec-
essary, in order to find that they were discharged for
engaging in protected activity, to exclude the working
of overtime as a reason for their activity. Since light-
ing and visibility were factors in their concern over
safety, it is natural that the employees would have
expected conditions to get worse rather than better as
the afternoon wore on toward evening. When they
finally quit about 5:30 p.m. they had already worked
2 hours' overtime and there were still hours of an-
nounced overtime ahead of them. That some of them
'Cf. N.L. R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co., Inc., 370 U.S. 9, 14 (1962);
Roemer Industries, Inc., 205 NLRB 63 (1973).
2 Although the employees involved here belonged to a union , the union
was not involved in the work stoppage.
3 N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co., supra, 370 U.S. at 16.
213 NLRB No. 113
UNION BOILER COMPANY
also may have had personal reasons for not wanting
to work any more overtime does not negate the con-
certed nature of the walkout.' More fundamentally,
even if the walkout had been primarily a protest
against the previously unscheduled assignment of ov-
ertime, such protest was not conducted in a manner
suggesting a plan or pattern of intermittent action and
therefore would also have been protected activity.'
For the foregoing reasons we find that Respondent
discharged and refused to reinstate these employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging employees Kenneth
Bee, Daniel McClain, Roger Johnson, and Lyle New-
man because they engaged in protected activities, we
shall order that Respondent offer these employees
immediate and full reinstatement and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
as a result of the unlawful action against them, by
payment to them of a sum of money equal to what
they would normally have earned as wages from the
date of their discharge until Respondent offers them
reinstatement, to be computed in accordance with
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
The record indicates that these employees were re-
ferred to Respondent forjobs at the power company's
premises by their union. If the jobs for which any of
these employees was hired has been completed, his
right of reinstatement shall be limited to a right to be
rehired, upon referral or otherwise, in the normal
course, and his backpay shall run only to the date on
which the job for which he was hired was completed.
Temperature Systems Corporation, 195 NLRB 1023
(1972).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Union Boiler Company, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Kenneth Bee, Daniel McClain,
Roger Johnson, and Lyle Newman because they en-
gaged in protected activities, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and is thereby engaged in unfair labor practices with-
McGaw Laboratories, a Division ofAmerican Hospital Supply Corporation,
206 NLRB 602 (1973).
5 Polyiech, Incorporated, 195 NLRB 695 (1972), Schultz, Snyder, & Steele
Lumber Company, 198 NLRB No 72 (1972)
819
in the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Union Boiler Company, Nitro, West Virginia, its of fi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees by discharging or in any other manner dis-
criminating against employees for striking or
engaging otherwise in concerted protected activity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Kenneth Bee, Lyle Newman, Daniel Mc-
Clain, and Ronald Johnson immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings each of them may have suffered by reason of the
unlawful action against him in the manner set forth in
the section in this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its premises at Nitro, West Virginia,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we, Union Boiler Compa-
ny, violated the National Labor Relations Act, and
has ordered us to post this notice and to keep the
promises that we make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against them for striking or for
engaging otherwise in concerted protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed.
WE WILL offer Kenneth Bee, Lyle Newman,
Daniel McClain, and Ronald Johnson full rein-
statement and make them whole for any loss of
earnings they have suffered.
UNION BOILER COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2977.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IVAR H. PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge: I heard this
case in Clarksburg, West Virginia, on March 26, 1974, based
upon charges filed by Kenneth Robert Bee, an individual,
on November 2,1973. On January 31, the Regional Director
for Region 6, issued a complaint and notice of hearing
alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by threatening employees with discharge because they
engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection and because they refused to work under abnor-
mally dangerous conditions, and, on or about October 30,
terminated employees Kenneth R. Bee, Lyle Newman,
Daniel McClain, and Roger Johnson, because they engaged
in the foregoing conduct. In its duly filed answer, the Re-
spondent admitted certain jurisdictional allegations but de-
nied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified, and a careful
consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General
Counsel and counsel for the Respondent on or about April
29, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a West Virginia corporation, has its
principal office in Nitro, West Virginia, and is there en-
gaged in the business of construction generally. During the
12-month period prior to the issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent admittedly performed services valued in excess
of $50,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000
were performed in states other than the State of West Vir-
ginia . The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
The Respondent had entered into a contract with the
Monongahela Power Company to provide miscellaneous
maintenance services at the Power Company's Harrison
Power Station located in Heywood, West Virginia. Under
this agreement, one of the jobs to be performed by the
Respondent was the cleaning of the inside of the fly ash silo.
About the middle of October, a work crew made up of the
foregoing employees in addition to employees Larry Posey
and Bruce Reswell began work for the Respondent at the
Harrison Power Station, having been referred to the job by
Laborers' Union Local 984, of which they were members.
The crew performed general cleanup work around the in-
side and outside of the plant until October 30. On that day,
they were assigned to clean out a silo containing fly ash,
which had become "caked" and was blocking the exit chute
located at the bottom of the silo. The silo is approximately
160 feet high and some 30-35 feet in diameter. On top of
the silo there is a hatch approximately 6 feet by 6 feet from
which the work crew gained entrance into the silo. There is
a railing around the circumference of the top of the silo on
which deck lights are posted. The procedure for cleaning out
the silo consisted of using a crew of 4 or 5 men and a crane
operator. A large crane was situated on the ground next to
UNION BOILER COMPANY
the silo. A skip bucket was attached to the crane and two
men entered the silo in the skip bucket through the hatch
on top of the silo. One or two men were placed over the
hatch to handle air hoses and relay signals from the men
inside the silo to another signal man who stood at the side
of the silo. The latter relayed the signals to the crane opera-
tor on the ground who controlled the movement of the skip
bucket. The two men in the skip bucket were lowered into
the silo with hoes and dug up the fly ash which had collected
on the sides of the silo.
The job of cleaning out the silo began on October 30. It
was a rainy day and there was an overcast. Earlier in the
day, Posey was told by Superintendent Ernest Call that the
crew would work a 12-hour day instead of the usual 7 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m. workday. At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon,
the first crew entered the silo. McClain and Johnson entered
the skip bucket while Posey, Bee, and an employee of the
Power Company handled the air hoses and acted as signal
men to the crane operator. When Johnson and McClain
began working, the dust from the fly ash prevented the men
on top from seeing the workers inside the silo, and in order
to communicate directions, the men in the skip bucket had
to remove the fresh air respirators they were wearing and
shout up to the men on top of the silo. The first crew worked
for about half an hour and then shouted to be taken out.
The visibility between Posey, who was acting as signal man,
and the crane operator was very poor because of the incle-
ment weather and fly ash which was coming out the bottom
of the silo which obscured the visibility of the crane. Posey
had to wait about 20 minutes before he was effectively able
to signal the crane to bring the men out.
After the first crew was brought out, Posey and Bee en-
tered the silo in the skip bucket, while McClain and Johnson
handled the air hoses at the hatch and Newman had been
called up to act as a signal man to the crane operator below.
This occurred between 4 and 4:30 in the afternoon . Bee and
Posey were lowered 80 or 90 feet into the silo and, shortly
after they began working, they were unable to see the hatch
on top. Although a string of lights had been dropped into
the silo to improve visibility for the workers, many of the
lights had gone out because of the rain hitting the bulbs and
thus the lights were of little or no aid to the men in seeing
inside the silo or locating the hatch. After working for about
half an hour, Posey and Bee shouted to be brought up and,
instead of going up, found that they were being lowered
further into the silo. They shouted again to be brought up
and again they were lowered. On the third attempt, the skip
bucket moved up. Because of the poor visibility between
Newman, who was acting as signal man, and the crane
operator, Newman had to give the operator three sets of
signals before the operator correctly moved the skip bucket.
It took about 45 minutes for Posey and Bee to ascend, find
the hatch and then feel their way out of the silo. This is
about 30 minutes longer than usual for a crew to get out of
the silo. After Posey and Bee got out of the silo, the crew
held a discussion on top of the silo. Posey, Bee, Johnson,
McClain, and Newman discussed the safety of the job and
decided that it was not safe to work on this particular job
any more that day. Thay felt the job was unsafe to continue
because of the slipperiness of the roof deck, the lack of
visibility from inside the silo in finding the hatch, and the
821
problem of communicating signals to the crane man be-
cause of the darkness, inclement weather and fly ash dust
blowing around the crane area. Posey and Bee left the top
of the silo and allegedly informed Superintendent Call that
the men felt it was unsafe to go back into the silo any more
that day. Posey testified that he told Call that the men would
work on the ground, but they did not want to go back into
the silo. Call told Posey and Bee that they were working at
his convenience and not their own, and if they did not want
to work inside the silo, they should come down and get their
checks.. This conversation took place around 5:30 p.m. Po-
sey and Bee returned to the top of the silo and informed the
men of Call's order to work or pick up their checks. The men
reaffirmed their decision not to work on the silo any more
that day, came down and left the jobsite.
On November 1, the Union sent Bee, Newman, Johnson,
and McClain with a new union steward, Harvey Williams,
back to the jobsite. Call refused to let the men go back to
work but did allow Williams to work. On November 2, a
new crew was sent out and put to work on the job of clean-
ing out the silo.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that the
Respondent's discharge and subsequent refusal to reinstate
Bee, McClain, Johnson, and Newman, was violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. He contends that the record "clearly
establishes that the above-named employees and Larry Po-
sey were concerned about the safety of continuing the job
of cleaning out the silo." He asserts that the "uncontrovert-
ed testimony" of three witnesses establishes that after Posey
and Bee got out of the silo, "the men, acting in concert,
decided it was not safe to continue the job under the existing
conditions. At this time, the men appointed Posey and Bee
to inform Superintendent Call of their decision, that they
did not want to work on top of and in the silo but would
continue to work at jobs on the ground."
It is the contention of counsel for the General Counsel
that Posey and Bee proceeded to inform Call of the crew's
decision not to continue to work on top of the silo but that
they were willing to perform other jobs. According to their
testimony, they told Call of the conditions that existed
which made the crew decide the job was unsafe . According
to these two employees, Call responded by stating that the
crew would work at his convenience, on the silo, or pick up
their checks. Based upon this evidence, counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel argues that "Call offered them the choice of
giving up their right to engage in protected concerted activi-
ty or being considered by the Respondent as having quit
their employment." According to him, this "option" was
relayed to the crew which then reaffirmed their decision
"not to work on the silo under such unsafe conditions" and
that they then concertedly left the jobsite "because of the
unsafe working conditions." He further contends that the
four discharged employees reported for work and were re-
fused reinstatement.[ Williams, a new employee, came for
the first time and was offered employment. He was not
present on October 30 and did not participate in the work
stoppage. Government counsel argues that the "simulta-
neous hiring of Williams and refusal to reinstate Bee, Mc-
1 After the five men left the job , Call informed Posey that he did not have
to leave and could come back the next day, which he did.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Clain, Newman and Johnson on November 1, firmly shows
that the Respondent discriminated against the individuals
who acted concertedly to protest unsafe working condi-
tions." Thus, he asserts, that on November 2, the Respon-
dent hired a new crew to perform the same work out of
which the dispute arose, "thus unlawfully replacing the dis-
criminatees after their discharge."
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that the facts in
the instant proceeding "are governed by the decision
reached by the Board in Washington Aluminum Company,
Inc., 126 NLRB 1410 and subsequently affirmed by the
Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co.,
370 U.S. 9." On the other hand, counsel for the Respondent
in his brief maintains that after the crew left the job on
October 30, "Laborers from their union have done the work.
Since that time members of the Power Company 's mainte-
nance crew have also cleaned the silo under precisely the
same conditions and procedures ." He maintains that al-
though the work of cleaning the silo "was a dirty and dis-
agreeable job" it was not "abnormally unsafe ." He also
points to the testimony of Joseph Larkin, the Company's
project manager , that there was "no more practical, less
risky way to do the job." According to him, the procedures
used to clean the silo were safe under the circumstances,
"they were as safe as they could be made."
Superintendent Call, who had had a great deal of experi-
ence in the industry, testified that he knew of no other way
to get the job done. Supervisor Evans of the Power Compa-
ny, who cleaned the silo many times before and after Octo-
ber 30, testified that the methods used were the only ones
feasible. He contends that the crew quit and points out that
the work "was subsequently completed by other members
of complainant's own union who worked under the same
conditions on the same job and did not refuse to do the job."
B. Conclusions
In Washington Aluminum, the Board adopted the follow-
ing findings made by the Trial Examiner:
J. Alfred R. Caron testified that on January 5, 1959,
he was a "leader" in the machine shop, and had no
authority to hire or fire employees, grant "time off," or
give permission to leave the plant. Caron further testi-
fied that on Monday, January 5, 1959, he arrived for
work at 7:'W a.m., and the plant was very cold at the
time ; that he'(as was his custom) went to the office of
Foreman David N. Jarvis adjoining the machine shop;
that he and Jarvis discussed "how cold it was and mis-
erable"; that during the conversation two of the em-
ployees walked by the office window (which gave out
into the plant) "huddled" and Jarvis observing them
remarked, "If those fellows had any guts at all they
would go home"; that following this remark he (Caron)
returned to the machine shop, noted that six of the
eight men who worked there as machinists, namely the
Charging Parties other than himself, were standing to-
gether "shaking a little, cold"; that he came up to them
and:
I told them, I said, "Dave told me that if we had
any guts at all, we would go home." And I said, "I
am going home." I said, "What are you fellows going
to do?"
Then they started talking among themselves say-
ing, "Well, let's go." And I started out first. And they
were following behind me.
Caron further testified that as he was leaving he passed
Jarvis to whom he said, "Dave it is too cold, I am going
home."
Caron admitted he did not have permission to leave
and was familiar with the standing company rule which
required that permission of a foreman was required in
order to leave the plant.
About 9:30 a.m. Caron received a telephone call at
his home from Jarvis who told him that on orders of
Fred N. Rushton, the Respondent's president, the sev-
en men who had left the plant that morning were dis-
charged. Later in the day Caron came to the plant and
removed his toolbox.
The Supreme Court (370 U.S. 9 at 14 (1962) ), made the
following observations in sustaining the Board's decision:
It is of course true that § 7 does not protect all
concerted activities, but that aspect of the section is not
involved in this case . The activities engaged in here do
not fall within the normal categories of unprotected
concerted activities such as those that are unlawful,
violent or in breach of contract. Nor can they be
brought under this Court's more recent pronounce-
ment which denied the protection of § 7 to activities
characterized as "indefensible" because they were
found to show a disloyalty to the workers' employer
which this Court deemed unnecessary to carry on the
workers' legitimate concerted activities. The activities
of these seven employees cannot be classified as "inde-
fensible" by any recognized standard of conduct. In-
deed, concerted activities by employees for the purpose
of trying to protect themselves from working condi-
tions as uncomfortable as the testimony and Board
findings showed them to be in this case are unquestion-
ably activities to correct conditions which modern la-
bor-management legislation treats as too bad to have
to be tolerated in a humane and civilized society like
ours.
In my view, the facts in this case are readily distinguisha-
ble from those in the Washington Aluminum case . While the
inclement weather undoubtedly added to the discomfort of
the employees and to some extent increased the hazard, I
am not persuaded that they left the jobsite because of these
conditions. Thus, Evans, an essentially disinterested wit-
ness, testified that he had occasion to be at the jobsite at
about 3 o'clock and that he "mentioned to the men that we
would go for 12 hours, and one of the men mentioned that
when . . . three-thirty come, he was going home." None of
the men complained to him about "conditions being un-
safe ." The only time Evans heard "of there being a condi-
tion of being unsafe, was the next morning when Mr. Call
came to me and said the men came back and they wanted
the conditions changed." Evans was present when Posey
stated "the men did not want to work," and that Call stated,
UNION BOILER COMPANY
according to Evans, "If they could not do it ... we'd have
to get somebody who could." Furthermore, the work was
subsequently completed by other members of the complain-
ants' union who worked under the same conditions on the
same job and did not refuse to do the work.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondent
has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the
complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Union Boiler Company, is an em-
823
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue
the following recommended:
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.