United Furniture Workers of America, ETC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 26, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, ETC. 1279 All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming or re- maining members of any labor organization. A. J. SACKETT AND SONS CO., 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 707 North Calvert Street, Sixth Floor, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone Number, Plaza 2-8460, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and J . Howard Proudman, Representative and Jamestown Sterling Corpora- tion . Case No. 3-CB-564. November 26, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 7, 1962, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Re- spondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond- ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 and the entire record in the case, including the ex- ceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.' IIn the absence of exceptions to the failure to find violations based upon the incidents concerning the throwing of a snowball at employee Anderson, the threatening gesture with a knife toward the tires of the truck Anderson was driving, and the stone throwing by Proudman in the lumberyard, we adopt these findings pro forma. Inasmuch as the Intermediate Report contains ample testimony in support of the violations found, we do not find it necessary to pass upon the cumulative testimony which was stricken by the Trial Examiner upon motion of the Respondents. We specifi- cally affirm the rulings of the Trial Examiner concerning the production of documents under our Rules and Regulations, Series 8, Section 102.118. See Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated) at al., 139 NLRB 151. We add to Conclusion of Law No. 4 the words: "in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The notice to be posted is hereby amended by striking the words "we hereby notify our employees that" and substituting the words "we hereby notify you that." 139 NLRB No. 114. 1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed January 8, 1962, by Jamestown Sterling Corporation, herein called Sterling, against United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and J. Howard Proudman, an individual, herein referred to as the Furniture Workers, Proudman, or the Respondents, the General Counsel issued complaint and amended complaint alleging that the Respondents had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Management Relations Act, as amended. The proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner John F. Funke at James- town, New York, on May 8, 21, 22, 23, and 24 and June 11 and 12, 1962. The hearing was closed by order dated June 18, 1962. The complaint alleged, in substance, that the Respondents, acting through desig- nated agents named in the complaint, coerced and restrained employees of Sterling by threatening and inflicting bodily harm upon them, threatening and damaging their property, threatening and inflicting bodily harm upon Sterling supervisors, threaten- ing to inflict bodily harm upon employees of a neutral employer, damaging the prop- erty of a neutral employer, and blocking ingress and egress to Sterling. The answer and amended answer denied that the persons named in the complaint were agents of the Furniture Workers and denied the acts of coercion and restraint alleged. At the hearing the Respondents moved to further amend its answer to deny the allegations contained in paragraph VI of the amended complaint. This paragraph reads: Since prior to October 3, 1961, Respondent Union has had a labor dispute with Sterling and has been engaged in a strike, and did authorize, establish, and maintain pickets at various entrances to the Sterling plant in the Town of Ellicott, New York. The motion was made after the General Counsel had concluded his case and the only reason given for the failure to plead the denial in the answer was inadvertence. Decision on this motion was reserved at the hearing. Since the General Counsel was warranted in proceeding upon the assumption that the allegations of paragraph VI had been admitted and presented his case on that theory, I now deny the motion to amend.' At various times during the hearing Respondents moved to strike testimony as not within the scope of the pleadings and at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case and again at the conclusion of the hearing there were motions to strike all the testimony. The complaint is specific and concise. In paragraph V(a) it alleges that the following persons were agents of the Respondent: David Chisholm, International representative; Anthony Marino, International representative; J. Howard Proudman, International representative; Sol Silverman, International representative; Burton Moyer, president local union No. (unchartered); James Hill, recording secretary, local union No. (unchartered); Otis Marsh, financial secretary, local union No. (unchartered); and Wilfred Marsh, committeeman, local union No. (unchartered). Paragraph VII of the amended complaint alleges, as does the bill of particulars, that the acts of coercion and restraint set forth, supra, were committed by the officers, agents, and representatives of the Respondent Union named in paragraph V. It does not allege that any acts of coercion were committed by other persons or mem- bers acting in concert with them or by or under their direction. I therefore hold that the testimony of witnesses to individual (as distinguished from group or con- certed) acts of coercion and restraint committed by persons other than those named in paragraph V(a) of the complaint is beyond the scope of the pleadings and I now grant the motion to strike such testimony.2 Respondents, even in a proceeding before an administrative agency, are entitled to prepare their answer and their evidence 1 The testimony of Proudman is sufficient to establish , prima facie, the allegations of paragraph VI. 8 To the extent that this ruling is inconsistent with or contradictory to any rulings made at the bearing those made at the hearing are hereby reversed UNITED FUR TITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, ETC . 1281 within the confines of the complaint directed against them. The General Counsel is not entitled to lull them into security by specific pleadings and then to enlarge his complaint by the introduction of other evidence upon a different theory of law. If the General Counsel elects to allege in his complaint that certain acts of coercion and restraint were committed by agent "A" he cannot then be heard, without amend- ment to his complaint, to prove that the acts were committed by agent "B" or by agents unknown or unidentified. I shall therefore strike the following testimony upon the general motion of counsel for the Respondents made at the conclusion of the General Counsel' s case. (a) The testimony of Neal Moehring insofar as it relates to being kicked by a striker named Noels and threatened by a striker named Foster. (b) The testimony of Fred Hayes that he was kicked by a striker named Rafael Rios and shoved into water by a striker named Allan Rowley. (c) The testimony of Myron Waite and the corroborating testimony of Peterson as to assaults on Waite by Douglas Ellis and Clarence Anderson. (d) The testimony of Waite that he was spat upon by Bob Foster. (e) The testimony of Zembardo that his clothes were ripped by Delgato, Ander- son, Porter, and Nunas, and the corroborating testimony of William J. Griffiths. (f) The testimony of Raymond Harvey as to the kicking of Moehring by Noels; the kicking of Hayes by Rios; the jostling of Myron Waite by Neal Warren and Robert Foster. (g) The testimony of Ronald Nunn that he was kicked and struck by an un- identified man as he was leaving the plant on January 16 and the corroborating testi- mony of Peterson (Peterson's testimony fixes the date as December 18). (h) The testimony of Elton Hitchcock that Fred Verrette kicked the fender of his car and the corroborating testimony of Charles Booth. (i) The testimony of Gordon Wagner that he was kneed in the groin by Floyd Kelly on October 9 and that he lost his glasses. (j) The testimony of Claire Welden that Fred Decker threw him against his car on December 19 and the corroborating testimony of Leland Peterson. (k) The testimony of Daniel Hart that he was pushed into the street by Steve Simpson on April 20. (1) The testimony of Gordon Wagner that he was tackled by Fred Verrette when he attempted to enter the plant in December and the corroborating testimony of James E. Covey. (m) The testimony of James E. Covey that he was struck by Clarence Anderson on either December 19 or 20. (n) The testimony of Harry Doty that his car was rocked by unidentified persons and that he was kicked by an unidentified man. (o) The testimony of Allan Phillips, news director of station WXYJ, that he was threatened with physical harm by an unidentified striker as he attempted to enter the plan on December 20. (p) The testimony of William J. Griffiths, president of station WXYJ, corro- borated in part by Allan Phillips, that their mobile broadcasting unit was rocked and damaged by an unidentified group of persons who had been among the strikers at the Sterling plant on January 17. At the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel submitted oral argument and a brief was received from counsel for the Respondents on July 23. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Sterling is a New York corporation maintaining its office and principal place of business and a plant at Ellicott, New York. It maintains other plants and ware- houses in the State of Pennsylvania which are not involved in this proceeding. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of furniture and related products and during the 12 months preceding the filing of the charge herein it sold and dis- tributed products valued in excess of $50,000 to places outside the State of New York. I find that Sterling is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The facts The General Counsel produced over 30 witnesses in support of the charges of coercion and restraint on the part of Respondents. I credit the testimony of these witnesses in substance 3 They gave every appearance of testifying truthfully and without exaggeration despite the fact that many of them, as a result of personal assault, had reason to feel animosity toward Respondents. On the basis of such credited testimony, I make the following findings of fact: (a) On the testimony of Neal Moehring, Fred Hayes, and Eugene Archer, I find Respondents engaged in mass picketing in numbers estimated in excess of 100 in front of the office and employees' entrance to the plant 4 and told the nonstrikers to go home. The dates were October 3 and 4. (b) On the testimony of Neal Moehring and Gordon Wagner, 'I find the Respond- ents engaged in mass picketing, formed a shoulder-to-shoulder formation, and en- gaged in shoving and kicking to keep the employees from entering. The date was October 9 I find the Respondents engaged in the same tactics on December 18, 19 and 20.5 (c) On the testimony of Vern Blood, corroborated by Neal Moehring, Leland Peterson, and James Covey, I find that Blood was kicked by Proudman as he entered the plant on December 18. (d) On the uncontradicted testimony of Fred Hayes, corroborated by Gordon Wagner, I find that he was struck by Wilfred Marsh in the parking lot across the street from the plant on a date in early April. (e) On the uncontradicted testimony of Moehring, I find that he was threatened with physical harm by Wilfred Marsh as he left the plant on January 16. (f) On the uncontradicted testimony of James Tillotson III, president of Sterling, I find that Marsh told him on December 14 or 15 that, "If I had a gun I would shoot you." I credit Raymond Harvey's testimony that he was present and heard this threat. (g) On the testimony of Gordon Overturf, I find that he was operating a high lift in early January and its operation was blocked by a group of strikers including Wilfred Marsh. (h) On the uncontradicted testimony of Ronald Nunn and Mrs. Nunn, I find that a group of strikers, including Otis and Wilfred Marsh, surrounded Nunn's car on December 9 and that Proudman kicked the fender of the car. (i) On the uncontradicted testimony of Gordon Wagner, I find that Wilfred Marsh spat in his face when he left the plant on January 15.6 (j) On the uncontradicted testimony of Leland Peterson, vice president of Sterling, I find that when he went to the assistance of Overturf when his high-lift truck was blocked by strikers, Wilfred Marsh, in the presence of Overturf, told him, "I will meet you somewhere and punch you in the nose again." (k) On the uncontradicted testimony of Lee Deuink, foreman, corroborated in part by William Pifer, I find that ingress to the loading platform at Sterling was temporarily blocked by strikers so that a truck driven by Victor Anderson could not reach the platform on either December 19 or 20. James Hill was a part of this group and the blocking consisted of placing a car in the driveway and, after the car was moved by direction of a police officer, the driveway was blocked by placing railroad ties which were removed by Pifer.7 s Although there are discrepancies between witnesses in their estimates of the number of pickets at various times and minor variances In dates, I find that these do not reflect on the credibility of the witnesses nor affect the substance of their testimony. Indeed, if such discrepancies did not exist, their testimony would be suspect of rehearsal. * The distance between the entrances Is less than 60 feet (Respondents' Exhibit No. 1 } 5In addition to Moehring, the following witnesses testified to picketing In December: Archer, Harvey, Waite, Rohrick, Tillotson, Peterson, Walden, Deuink, Himmelmann , Blood, Griffiths, and Price. I credit all of them. In view of this finding I find it unnecessary to resolve the credibility issue between Janice Kent and Proudman as to an alleged spitting incident on January 11 . An affirma- tive finding would be cumulative. T I reject the testimony that a snowball was thrown at Anderson as evidence of coercion. Under the schoolboy rules, as I recall them, the throwing of snowballs is harmless frolic unless a rock is enclosed In the snowball . There is no evidence that the snowball in this instance contained a rock. UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, ETC. 1283 (1) On the uncontradicted testimony of Leland Peterson, I find that he was struck in the face by Wilfred Marsh when he went to the assistance of Tillotson and a group of strikers attempting to enter the plant on December 18. (m) On the uncontradicted testimony of Eugene Archer, corroborated by Clifford Himmelmann and in part by Raymond Harvey, I find that on December 20 he was kicked by James Hill as he attempted to enter the plant. (n) On the uncontradicted testimony of Raymond Harvey, corroborated by Himmelmann, I find that he was kicked by James Hill as he attempted to enter the plant with Archer on December 20. At the same time a group of strikers, includ- ing Hill and Wilfred Marsh, attempted to prevent them from entering the plant and Marsh told Harvey, "I ought to push your face in." (o) On the testimony of Philip Deponceau, I find that he was shoved by Otis Marsh and his attempt to enter the plant impeded by strikers on April 20. (p) On the credited testimony of several of the General Counsel' s witnesses, particularly Leland Peterson, I find that Proudman and unidentified strikers threw stones at employees working in the lumber yard of the plant on November 21. (q) On the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Phillips, I find that he was stopped by Proudman as he attempted to enter the plant on December 20 and I accept his testimony that there were employees in the area at the time. As to other testimony as to which no specific finding has been made, I have rejected such testimony as beyond the scope of the complaint , i.e., name calling, threats of blackballing, and of slowdowns; or as too trivial in import to warrant a finding, i.e ., the threatening gesture with a knife toward the tires of Anderson's truck; or as lacking in probative value. B. Conclusions 1. The agency issue Despite the contentions of the Respondents, so eloquently argued in their coun- sel's brief, I find that Proudman was at all times the representative and agent of the United Furniture Workers. This Union was the certified collective-bargaining agent of the employees of Sterling and, as I have found, it authorized and ratified the strike involved in this proceeding. Proudman testified that, as an International representative of the Furniture Workers, he serviced the Jamestown area and worked with the people on strike at Sterling. Proudman was present on the picket line on practically every day of the strike and the contention that this was merely a strike called by the employees of Sterling, acting alone and without assistance from or direction by the Furniture Workers, cannot be sustained. This strike was carried on for many months (and so far as the record is concerned is still continuing), it was marked by continuous picketing and by the withholding of services by a large number of employees. Not only Proudman but two other International repre- sentatives of the Furniture Workers participated in the picketing, David Chisholm and Anthony Marino. To hold that under such conditions the strike and the picketing were merely the spontaneous and undirected manifestations of employee conduct stretches credulity too far. I do not, on the other hand, find that Burton Moyer, James Hill, and Otis and Wilfred Marsh can be deemed agents of the Furniture Workers. They are designated in the complaint as elected officers of an unchartered local. This local had neither a constitution nor bylaws nor did it collect dues from its membership. It was neither a de jure nor a de facto organization on the facts of this record. The only activity of the above-named officers was participation in bargaining negotiations. They were not officers who either led or were designated as leaders in the strike. They were not picket captains nor were they given any greater authority in direct- ing the picketing and strike activities than other union members. I have, therefore, no difficulty in distinguishing this case from Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (General Electrical Company), 126 NLRB 123 This finding does not, however, preclude me from finding the Furniture Workers responsible for the conduct of these persons . Where a strike has been conducted over a long period of time and repeated acts of violence and other un- lawful conduct have occurred in the presence of International representatives of the labor organization conducting the strike with neither disavowal nor repudiation of such conduct, the union must accept the responsibility. A pattern of unlawful conduct was established here, it was established in the presence of and with the acquiescence, at least , of the International representatives. I, therefore, hold the 672010-63-vol . 139-82 1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD closer question of agency immaterial and find Furniture Workers and Proudman responsible for the picket line conduct of the strikers. I have restrained my findings of picket misconduct to that of the persons designated in the complaint not be- cause of agency but solely because of the specificity of the allegations. If citation of authority for my holding is required, I refer to Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, et al. (Bethlehem Steel Company), 130 NLRB 412, and cases cited therein. 2. 8(b)(1)(A) I find sufficient evidence to support the allegations in paragraph VII(a) of the complaint that Respondents inflicted bodily injury and threatened bodily injury and other harm upon employees of Sterling in the following instances heretofore found to have occurred: (a) the kicking of Blood by Proudman; (b) the striking of Hayes by Wilfred Marsh; (c) the threatening of Moehring by Wilfred Marsh; (d) the spitting upon Wagner by Wilfred Marsh; (e) the kicking of Archer by James Hill; (f) the kicking of Harvey by Hill; (g) the threatening of Harvey by Wilfred Marsh; and (h) the shoving of Deponceau by Otis Marsh. Although I credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witness with respect to the stone throwing by Proudman in the lumberyard, I do not find it sufficient to constitute evidence of coercion and restraint within 8(b) (1) (A). Although the stones were thrown in the direction of the employees, there is no testimony from which it can be inferred that Proudman was attempting to hit them and Peterson testified that the stones were thrown in a "casual" manner with an underhand tossing motion. Although there are decisions which indicate that the Board believes the American working- man is easily coerced and that, like sweet Alice Ben Bolt, he "trembles with fear at a frown," I cannot hold that so minor a form of harassment constitutes coercion and restraint. As to paragraph VII(b), I cannot find that the loss of Wagner's eyeglasses can be attributed to any of the persons named in paragraph V of the complaint; I do not find the kicking of a fender by Proudman sufficient to warrant a finding of property damage and I have rejected the other instance of kicking a car and the ripping of Zembardo's clothes as beyond the scope of the complaint. I recommend that paragraph VII(b) of the complaint be dismissed. I find sufficient evidence to support the allegations of paragraph VII(e) that Re- spondents inflicted and threatened to inflict bodily harm upon agents and repre- sentatives of Sterling in the following incidents: (a) the threatening of Tillotson by Wilfred Marsh; (b) the threatening of Peterson by Wilfred Marsh; and (c) the striking of Peterson by Wilfred Marsh. I have rejected the testimony ,that Allan Phillips was threatened by an unidentified striker as he attempted to enter the plant on December 20 as beyond the scope of the complaint and I recommend that paragraph VII(d) of the complaint be dismissed. I have also rejected the testimony that the automobile unit of station WXYJ was rocked and damaged by unidentified persons on January 17 as beyond the scope of the complaint. I recommend that paragraph VII(e) be dismissed. I find sufficient evidence to support the allegations of paragraph VII(f) of the complaint that ingress to and egress from the premises of Sterling by employees and other persons was blocked on October 3, 4, and 9, December 19, 20, and 21, on an unspecified date in January (the fork lift incident), on January 15 and 16, and on April 20. IV. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Sterling is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. J. Howard Proudman is an agent and representative of the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO. UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, ETC. 1285 4 By engaging in the conduct as above found, Respondents have restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondents, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives, suc- cessors, and assigns, and J. Howard Proudman, its representative, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inflicting and threatening to inflict bodily harm upon the employees, agents, and representatives of Sterling for crossing or attempting to cross the picket line. (b) Blocking ingress and egress of employees of Sterling and other persons to the premises of the Sterling plant by threatening them, by shoulder-to-shoulder picketing, and by striking, shoving, kicking, and spitting upon them. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing the employees of Sterling in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of the Respondent in Jamestown, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of the Respondent, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for the Third Region for posting by Jamestown Sterling Corporation, it willing, at all locations where notices to Sterling's employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith .9 It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to all allegations not specifically found herein to have been in violation of the Act. 8 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 9If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF JAMESTOWN STERLING CORPORATION AND TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AT JAMESTOWN, NEW YORK Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT inflict or threaten to inflict bodily harm upon the employees, agents, or representatives of Jamestown Sterling Corporation because they cross or attempt to cross the picket line. WE WILL NOT block ingress and egress of employees of Jamestown Sterling Corporation or other persons to the premises of Jamestown Sterling Corpora- tion by threatening them, by shoulder-to-shoulder picketing, or by striking, shoving, kicking, or spitting upon them. 1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce the employees of Jamestown Sterling Corporation in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7. UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated-------- ----------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue , Buffalo 2 , New York, Telephone Number, Tl. 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Tri-W Construction Company and International Union of Operat- ing Engineers , Local 542 and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Party to the Contract Tri-W Construction Company and United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America , Local No. 492 and District 50, United Mine Workers of America , Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 4-CA-2399-1 and 4-CA-2399-2. November 06, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On June 1, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as recommended in the attached Intermediate Re- port. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices violative of the Act. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 542, one of the Charging Parties herein, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, 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 entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the ex- I As the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument by International Union of Operat- ing Engineers , Local 542, is denied. 139 NLRB No. 116.