Wyatt Metal and Boiler Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 618 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of WYATT METAL AND BOILER WCIRIiS and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA and UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE WYATT
METAL AND BOILER WORKS, A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. 16-C-962.-Decided March 00, 1944
Mr. Bliss Daffan, for the Board.
Mr. Ralph W. Malone, of Dallas, Tex., and Mr. Torn M. Davis, of
Houston, Tex., for the respondent.
Mr. W. A. Leigh, of Dallas, Tex., for the Union.
Messrs. William Hix and Troy 0. Rogers, of Dallas, Tex., for the
Employees' Union.
Mr. Harry H. Kuskin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on May 20, 1943, by United Steelworkers
of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated
August 17, 1943, against Wyatt Metal and Boiler Works, Dallas,
Texas, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of hear-
ing thereon were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and
the Union of Employees of the Wyatt Metal and Boiler Works,
herein called the Employees' Union.
The respondent filed an answer, dated August 26, 1943, in which
it denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Dallas, Texas, from Au-
gust 30, through September 10, 1943, before Max G. Baron, Trial Ex-
55 N. L. R. B., No. 110
618
WYATT METAL AND BOILER WORKS 619
aniiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board,
the respondent, the Union, and the Employees' Union participated
in the hearing by their representatives.
Thereafter , the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
dated December 29, 1943, copies of which were duly served upon the
respondent, the Union, and the Employees' Union. He found that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and made certain recommenda-
tions pertaining thereto. On January 28, 1944, the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, alleging, inter alia, that the
respondent had been denied full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues at the hearing.
A review of the record reveals that numerous rulings were made by
the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing which prevented
the respondent from introducing evidence which was competent, rele-
vant, and material to the issues. Thus, the Trial Examiner errone-
ously restricted the respondent in its cross-examination of Board wit-
nesses for the announced reason, with which we do not agree, that
"counsel [for the respondent] will be denied the right to lead witnesses
on cross-examination who have not shown any hostility and are not ad-
verse witnesses to the respondent." In another such instance, the Trial
Examiner ruled that counsel for the Board need not exhibit to the re-
spondent, for the purpose of cross-examination of a Board witness, a
document which had previously been shown to that witness by the
Board's counsel and withdrawn without being marked in evidence.
Accordingly, we shall order that the record, with the exception of the
charge and the pleadings, be set aside and that a new hearing be held.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
Article IT, Section 35, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 3,
IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the record in the above case, with the ex-
ception of the charge and the pleadings, be, and it hereby is, set aside;
and
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding be, and it. hereby is, re-
ferred to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region for the pur-
pose of a new hearing.
0