text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1966 › Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Afl-cio, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Res...
Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Afl-cio, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent.national Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Sagamore Shirt Company, D/b/a Spruce Pine Manufacturing Co., Respondent, 365 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 365 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1966) Argued January 10, 1966
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Mr. Joel Field, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Jacob Sheinkman, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 19452
Mr. Warren M. Davison, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 19515 and respondent in No. 19452.
Mr. J. W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N. C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. John L. Kilcullen, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for respondent in No. 19515.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.
LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated cases relate to an order of the National Labor Relations Board.1 The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings that Sagamore Shirt Company (Company) had violated Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act2 in the following respects: The Company refused to recognize and bargain with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers (Union) which represented a majority of the workers. Company supervisors, i. e. floorladies, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Act. The Company posted a coercive notice concerning the Union in the plant. The Company's plant manager, Shay, interrogated an employee about her visit with Union organizers. The Company's subsequent unlawful conduct contributed to the conditions which created the Union's loss of majority. The Board's Order enjoined continuance of these unlawful practices and directed the Company to bargain collectively with the Union. The Board also adopted the Examiner's findings that a speech by Shay was within the protection of section 8(c) and did not violate the Act, and that the Company did not apply its no-solicitation rule in a discriminatory manner. The Board accordingly dismissed the complaint relating to these charges and the Union has filed a petition to review (No. 19452). Also pending before us, in No. 19515, is the Board's petition to enforce the order entered against the Company.
The underlying facts established in findings of the Examiner, approved by the Board, and supported by substantial evidence, are as follows: The Company, which has its general offices and its administrative staff at its plant in Fall River, Massachusetts, operates a plant in North Carolina employing 106 production and maintenance employees, mostly women, engaged in the manufacture of shirts. In the spring of 1963, the Union, already the bargaining agent for the employees in Massachusetts, began organizing activities among the Company's employees in North Carolina. By early October, the Union had obtained signed authorization cards from more than one-half of the plant's production and maintenance workers. On October 14, 1963, the Union wrote to the Company advising of this fact, and requesting that the Company recognize and bargain with the Union. The Union offered to submit the authorization cards to a count by an impartial third party.
On October 16, the Company posted a notice on plant bulletin boards stating its opposition to the Union's campaign and mailed a copy of the notice to each employee. Plant manager Shay, by letter of October 22, rejected the Union's claim to majority status and its request for recognition and bargaining, suggesting that the Union petition for a Board-conducted representation election.
The next day, October 23, the Union filed a representation petition with the Board. After a hearing on November 22, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election on December 4, and scheduled a representation election to be conducted on December 19 among the plant's production and maintenance workers. In this decision the Regional Director found that the Company's floorladies were supervisors under the Act and therefore were to be excluded from the unit.
The Board found that the Company's floorladies warned the employees that plant manager Shay would close down the plant rather than deal with the Union, in some cases threatened to make it hard on union supporters, and interrogated employees concerning their union activities. On December 18, Shay convened the employees and delivered a speech concerning the union. That same day, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. The Regional Director canceled the representation election, and subsequently granted the Union's request to withdraw its representation petition.
I. The Company's Right to Relitigate the Supervisory Status of Its Floor-ladies.
The first question before us is the supervisory status of the floorladies, since it was on the basis of that status that activities of the floorladies were held to constitute a violation of section 8(a) (1) on the part of the Company. At the unfair labor practice hearing before the Examiner, the Company attempted to establish that the floorladies were not supervisors under the Act. The Examiner held that since no appeal had been taken from the Regional Director's determination of December 4 that the floorladies possessed supervisory status, the issue could not be relitigated in the present proceeding. The Examiner relied on Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N. L. R. B., 313 U.S. 146, 158, 61 S. Ct. 908, 85 L. Ed. 1251 (1941), and the Board's Rule § 102.67(f), adopted in 1961, which provides that " [f]ailure to request review [of the Regional Director's determination] shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding."3 The Company filed specific exceptions to this ruling, but the Board's opinion does not make any reference to them. Board counsel now argues that we, too, are bound by the Regional Director's decision in light of the Company's failure to appeal that decision immediately to the Board.
Prior to 1961 the Board itself heard representation questions and determined the proper unit for an election. In that framework a series of decisions evolved with respect to contest of such Board determination. It was early held that parties could not obtain judicial review of the Board's determination of the proper unit for an election at the time such determination was made.4 Congress expressly recognized that allowing such appeals would delay the holding of many elections and encourage labor strife.5 Upon the finding of an unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain with the union after its post-election certification, the company could appeal to the courts and at that time test the validity of the earlier unit determination.6
It was also early held by the Board,7 with the concurrence of the courts,8 that at the subsequent hearing on the charge of refusal to bargain the Board need not allow the company to relitigate before the trial examiner or the Board questions concerning the unit determination previously made by the Board. In short, the company's appeal to the court had to be based on the record made at the earlier representation hearing.
When the unfair labor practice charge following a representation proceeding was not a refusal to bargain, however, the Board did not completely preclude relitigation, in the unfair labor practice hearing, of a question determined at the representation hearing. The leading decision is Leonard Niederriter Co., 130 N.L.R.B. 113 (1961), where the company was charged with an unfair labor practice for discharging an employee whom the Board had found to be an employee rather than a supervisor in a previous representation proceeding. The Examiner said:
It is the trier of these facts' understanding, based upon a study of the following cited cases, that the Board's findings and conclusions in a prior representation case existing at the time of such decision are binding on the Trial Examiner in a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding absent evidence which was newly discovered or unavailable to the respondent at the time of the representation hearing. [130 N.L.R.B. at 120, n. 9.]
The Board disagreed, holding:
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the finding in the earlier representation case * * * that Schwartz was not a supervisor did not finally and conclusively resolve that issue for the purposes of this case involving alleged violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. [130 N.L.R.B. at 115, n. 2.]
Prior to the Board's Niederriter decision, Congress, aware of the huge backlog of cases confronting the Board, due in large part to the number of representation petitions on file,9 amended the Taft-Hartley Act to allow the Board to delegate to its Regional Directors the power to make unit determinations, to order elections and to certify the results thereof, subject to discretionary review by the Board.10
In 1961, subsequent to Niederriter, the Board promulgated regulations regarding such delegation. Section 102.67(b) of the Board's rules provides that any party to a representation proceeding may file a request for review by the Board within ten days after the decision of the Regional Director.
Section 102.67(f), relating to failure to seek or accord such review by the Board, provides as follows:
The parties may, at any time, waive their right to request review. Failure to request review shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding. Denial of a request for review shall constitute an affirmance of the regional director's action which shall also preclude relitigating any such issues in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding. [29 C.F.R. 133 (1966).]
This rule carries over the earlier Board practice precluding relitigation in a "related" unfair labor practice hearing of an issue determined in a representation hearing, even though now the representation determination may have been made by the Regional Director.
The rule is clear enough where the company seeks to justify an alleged refusal to bargain on the ground that the earlier unit determination is incorrect. Here, however, the unfair labor practice charge relating to the activities of the floorladies is not a charge of refusal to bargain, nor is it either established by or dependent upon a finding of refusal to bargain. Indeed, coercion by supervisors is unlawful even where the union does not represent a majority. The situation is one that comes within the scope of Niederriter. Board counsel emphasizes that Niederriter preceded the issuance of the rule under discussion. But the Board has never held that its 1961 decision in Niederriter was scrapped by the rule promulgated later that year.11 The trial examiners have differed in their approaches. Some of them have felt that even in situations similar to Niederriter, the result is now changed by virtue of the 1961 rule, and the representation determination by the Regional Director is binding.12 Other examiners have argued that such determination of the Regional Director should not be given more than "persuasive relevance,"13 on the theory that the new regulations were not intended "to give more binding effect to a Regional Director's decisions than to a decision issued by [the Board] * * *."14 Reference to the cases cited in the footnotes discloses that the Board has affirmed both these sets of examiner decisions, without any opinion or comment.
In our opinion, the Board's rule against relitigation "in a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding" does not give an employer sufficient notice that his failure to pursue all of his remedies in the representation proceeding means he will be disabled, regardless of the context of the subsequent proceeding, from challenging each and every issue "which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding." A more natural reading of the rule, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, is one which precludes relitigation only in a "related" subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, construed in accordance with the doctrine announced in Niederriter a few months prior to the new regulation. Where a company is charged with refusal to bargain with a union certified after election, the proceeding is sufficiently "related" to the representation proceeding to preclude relitigation of such common issues as the scope of the appropriate unit and employees therein. Where, however, as in this case, the part of the charge involved in the relitigation issue is not refusal to bargain, but rather interference with rights of organization, the proceedings are not so related as to foreclose presentation to the Board of the underlying issues.
This construction of section 102.67(f) of the Board's rules, which estop relitigation in a related proceeding, is in accordance with the long-held objective of avoiding undue and unnecessary delay in representation elections. There will be cases where an employer will be as interested as the Board in holding a speedy election and will be willing to forego the presence of a given employee in the unit or his vote in the tally. We see no basis for assuming that the Board wishes to require such an employer to delay the election while he completely litigates subsidiary questions, such as supervisory status, in an effort to protect his rights in the future on matters other than the determination of the unit and eligible voters therein.15
In the interest of clarity we may note that the Trial Examiner and the Board need not allow the Company to relitigate the issue completely. The evidence at the earlier hearing need not be reheard but could, as it was in this case, be incorporated into the record, upon being specifically identified. The findings of the Regional Director may be accorded "persuasive relevance," a kind of administrative comity, aiding the Examiner and the Board in reaching just decisions, subject however to power of reconsideration both on the record already made and in the light of any additional evidence that the Examiner finds material and helpful to a proper resolution of the issue.
We remand the question of the supervisory status of the floorladies to the Board for further consideration in accordance with our decision and we will delay any review of the nature of the activities of the floorladies until the question of their status has been determined by the Board.
II. Validity of the Union Authorization Cards.
The Examiner concluded that the Company had violated section 8(a) (5) by its refusal to bargain. He based this finding on his view that the Company had no good faith doubt about the Union's majority status when it requested recognition, as shown by the fact that the Company refused to submit the authorization cards to a neutral party for verification, and that the Company subsequently engaged in unfair labor practices aimed at undercutting the union majority.
A finding that the Company has violated its statutory duty to bargain entails two prerequisite findings: first, that a majority of the members of the appropriate bargaining unit have freely designated the Union as their bargaining agent; and second, that the Company's denial of recognition was not in good faith.16 Union authorization cards suffice to establish the first requirement where they fairly reflect an intention of the signers to designate the Union as their bargaining agent. The Examiner found that of the 106 members of the unit, 60 had signed valid cards, though upon examination of the record we can find reference to only 59.17
The Company's primary objection is that a number of these cards were obtained on the representation that they were to be used for obtaining an election. The Board first discussed the question of such representations in Englewood Lumber Co., 130 N.L.R.B. 394 (1961), where it found:
[T]he Union did not tell the employees that by signing the cards they were authorizing the union to represent them; rather, the employees were told that the cards were necessary in order that the Board might conduct an election by secret ballot in which every employee would have an opportunity to express his preference. [130 N.L. R.B. at 394-95.]
The Board, stressing that it was considering what the employees were told and not their subjective reactions, found that "we do not think it can reasonably be said that the employees, by their act of signing authorizations, thereby clearly manifested an intention to designate the Union as their bargaining representative." Id. at 395. Then, in Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 N.L.R.B. 1268, 1269 (1963), the Board held that unless employees were told that an election "was the only purpose of the cards," the employees would be held to the terms of the cards which in that case clearly and explicitly stated that the employee was authorizing the union to act as his bargaining agent. This was enforced on appeal, NLRB v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965).18
The wording of the authorization card is an important factor in determining whether an employee meant to authorize the union as his bargaining agent. Where a card is clear on its face, as designating the union as bargaining agent, it is not subject to parol impeachment merely because the employee was told that the purpose of the card was to secure an election. International Union, UAW v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 363 F.2d 702, decided June 15, 1966. The card itself effectively advises the employee of the purpose to constitute the union as bargaining agent. The validity of a clear card is vitiated only when the oral inducement expressly states that the only purpose of the card was to obtain an election. However, as stated in Morris & Associates, Inc., 138 N.L.R.B. 1160, 1177 (1962), "where the purported authorization is questionable on its face * * * what the employees are told assumes greater importance. * * *"19 When an authorization card itself is unclear about its purpose and no reason is given an employee for signing other than that "this card is to be used to obtain an election," the fair inference is that the only reason the employee is signing is to obtain an election. In such circumstances the card itself has so little thrust as signaling an authorization intention, that its effectiveness for that purpose is undercut even though the union representatives did not say in so many words that its "only" purpose was to assure an election.
In the case at hand, the authorization cards are anything but clear. The card on its face says nothing about the Union, not to mention authorization. It only states:
"I ..........................., now (Print full name here)
employed by ................... Company, SUBSCRIBE TO THE PROVISIONS PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD." There is a place for signature at the bottom of the face side of the card. The reverse side has no place for signature but contains 19 lines of print, which include the statement that the employee (identified as "I" on the face) — "have voluntarily accepted membership in Local Union ........ of the AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA (AFL-CIO), and designate said Union as my bargaining agency in all matters pertaining to wages, hours and other conditions of employment."20
There was testimony before the Examiner that some employees had no idea that anything was on the reverse side of the card, let alone that it was a combination membership, union-authorization card. We do not agree with the Union's claim that the cards themselves conclusively establish that signers were choosing the Union. Where the union does not provide its organizers with cards clearly informing employees of their purpose, the union must face the possibility that the effectiveness of the cards may be undercut by parol testimony showing that the purpose presented to the employees was that of securing an election and that the purpose of union authorization was not mentioned.
The Board held the cards conclusive of Union authorization in the absence of testimony that their "only" purpose was to arrange an election. These cards are not entitled to such great weight. Moreover, even on the Board's own approach there is error in its finding that "there is * * * no evidence that anyone was told that the card was being solicited for the sole purpose of obtaining an election." The record discloses three witnesses testifying to that effect, unshaken on cross-examination. Edna Stiles said that she was told that she was not joining the Union and that the card "was just to show I wanted it brought to an election." Ruth Cox said she was told "he [the solicitor] wanted to get the girls to sign cards so that they could hold the election, but that didn't mean we were for the Union." Mary Stamey said she was told her signature would "give the other girls their fair chance to have an election * * *" and "that this did not mean that I was joining the Union. This was for an election." These three cards should not have been counted toward the Union's majority.
No other testimony was adduced on this point. The Company argues, however, that it made a relevant proffer of proof which the Examiner rejected. We think the proffer was insufficient. Initially Company counsel offered the employee witnesses solely for testimony that they had voluntarily gone to see Shay to tell him of their opposition to the Union. The Examiner ruled this would be cumulative, as it clearly would have been. Company counsel then formally stated his proffer for the record, and this time he mentioned — in passing — that employees would testify they "were asking for an election and joining the union." The Examiner did not allude to this aspect of the remarks of Company counsel, but in any event, that proffer would not have established that the employees had only been told that the purpose of the cards was for an election.
After the proffer was rejected, the Examiner granted Company counsel time to gather a list of the witnesses proffered. When counsel presented the list he again stated the substance of the testimony they would give. This time that projected testimony was stated in different words, as forecasting that they would testify that they were told the only purpose of the cards was to obtain an election. If counsel intended to offer numerous witnesses with testimony undermining the authorization cards, it was incumbent upon him to make that fact clear at that time. Company counsel's restatement of the proffer was not flagged as a revision of the proffer, and we do not think the slight changes in wording fairly alerted the Examiner that the substance of the proffer was being changed. Hence it cannot now be used as a substitute for proof in the way Company counsel now desires.
The Company also contends that Union solicitors made false statements to at least some card signers that a majority of the workers had already signed union authorization cards. Such puffing does not vitiate the cards unless the comments were a means of coercing employees to sign cards out of a fear of majority reprisal.21 There was no showing that any threats were used against a signer of a card other than employee Styles, whose card we have already discarded. After correction for the Board's errors, described above, the record still supports the Board's finding that the Union represented a majority of the unit. The Company argues, in the alternative, that in any event it had a good faith doubt about the Union's majority status, and we turn to that contention.
III. The Company's Good-Faith Doubt as to Majority Status.
The record is replete with testimony by signers and nonsigners of authorization cards that they voluntarily went to Shay's office to tell him both that they opposed the Union and that they thought most of the employees they talked to were likewise opposed. The Examiner seems to have assumed, without deciding, that such statements could provide an employer with a reasonable doubt about majority status, but he found that in this case the coercive activities of the floorladies and the refusal of management to verify the number of cards held by the Union demonstrated that the Company did not have a good faith doubt about the Union's majority, but was rather seeking to destroy the majority. Obviously an employer cannot seek delay of an election solely in an attempt to undercut a union majority.22 Here, however, the Examiner's finding rests upon the assumption that the Company was responsible for the conduct of the floorladies. Accordingly, we remand the question for further consideration should it be determined on remand that the floorladies are not supervisors. If they are supervisors, the Company is responsible for their conduct.
IV. The Company Notice.
The day after the Union sought recognition, the Company posted a sign, edged in red, stating its position with regard to the Union. The Trial Examiner found that this notice constituted "further interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act." The notice, in its pertinent parts, states:
Since the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America has been putting on another campaign to get in here, a good many questions have arisen with regard to the following matters. We have decided to state the Company's position on these questions as clearly as we can for everybody alike:
(1) This matter is, of course, one of concern to the Company. It is also, however, a matter of serious concern to you and our sincere belief is that if the Union were to get in here it would not work to your benefit but, in the long run would itself operate to your serious harm.
(2) It is our intention to oppose the Union and by every proper means to prevent it from coming into to this operation.
On numerous occasions in the past, the Board has consistently found generally similar notices, particularly the statements that a union would work to the "serious harm" of the employees, to be veiled threats of company reprisal should the union succeed in its campaign for recognition.23 The circuit courts of appeals that have thus far considered the point have disagreed with the Board24 and held that the expression of opinions such as these is protected by section 8(c).25 In one case the Company's belief "that a union would not work to our employees' benefit but to their serious harm" was revised to drop the last five words and the court, in approving the notice, commented that the company "has, wisely we think, eliminated this critical language."26 In the present case, the notice retains a reference to "serious harm" but is more subdued than some previously approved, since it states that the Union will cause harm to accrue to the employees "in the long run."
Counsel for the Board argues that this court should defer to the Board's expertise in interpreting the true meaning of this notice in the context in which it was displayed. In the absence of extrinsic or accompanying circumstances, this notice in and of itself cannot reasonably be construed as a "threat of reprisal or force" as required by the Act.27 The notice may take a different coloration by virtue of the accompanying circumstances. Cf. Holmes, J., in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S. Ct. 158, 62 L. Ed. 372 (1918). But the non-coercive character of the notice taken by itself precludes its prohibition unless the Board, endowed with the lens of an expert, provides explanatory findings revealing that the words take on a darker hue when viewed in the perspective of the particular setting. The Board's only explanation here is that "particularly in light of the other unfair labor practices found herein, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the above-mentioned portion of the notice violated Section 8(a) (1)." As we understand it, the Examiner's interdiction of the notice was based on the authority of Board precedents rather than an assessment of the particular facts in this case. We deem it significant that the Examiner found that the statements in Shay's speech, which were also foreboding of loss of jobs,28 were not coercive, and did not contain impermissible threats or promises. The speech was avowedly appraised in its context. The Board adopted this finding, and we cannot say it is unsupported by substantial evidence.
In light of this discussion, therefore, we affirm the Board's finding that Shay's speech was not in violation of the Act and deny enforcement to that portion of the Board order directed against the notice.
V. Application of the Company's No-Solicitation Rule.
The notice posted by the Company also contained a clause stating:
(6) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities on the job. Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work or interferes with the work of others will be subject to discharge.
The Union complains that this no-solicitation rule was discriminatorily applied. The only incident cited occurred shortly after Shay's speech on the day before the scheduled election, when an employee (Gilly) was allowed, without any restraint by the floorlady, to gather together workers on Company time to go to Shay's office to express their support of his position. The Examiner also relied upon testimony that the employees knew that they were not to wander around during working hours but "were supposed to stay at our job." The Board, in upholding the Examiner, stated that, since the record did not disclose that the Company had ever invoked the sanctions of the no-solicitation rule against any employee for Union activities in the plant, there had been no discriminatory application of the rule. The Board specifically noted that no one had contested the validity of the no-solicitation rule itself. Moreover, it was the assumption of the Board, supported by substantial evidence, that the activity was a purely spontaneous employee demonstration not attributable to suggestion, much less stimulation, by Company management.29
The Union argues that it is unfair and improper to require that a worker supporting the Union must jeopardize his job by subjecting himself to possible discharge before the Company can be held responsible for its discriminatory application of its no-solicitation rule. We do not agree with the Board if and to the extent that it implied that there could be no discrimination until there was an imposition of sanctions under the no-solicitation rule. The Company's failure to honor a request that pro-union employees have access to their fellow workers equal to that available to anti-union employees, would support a finding of impermissible discrimination.30 But here the Union made no such request. We cannot say that the Board had no rational basis for concluding that there was no discrimination in the application of the no-solicitation rule.31
Two points remain. The Examiner's finding that Shay had violated section 8(a) (1) by interrogating one employee about her visits with the Union is supported by substantial evidence in the record. And we reject the Union's contention that the Board was required to adopt a broader cease and desist order. See NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426, 433, 61 S. Ct. 693, 85 L. Ed. 930 (1941); Communications Workers v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 479, 480-481, 80 S. Ct. 838, 4 L. Ed. 2d 896 (1960).
The Board's order and rulings brought before us in No. 19452 are affirmed.
In No. 19515, the Board's order with regard to Shay's interrogation is entitled to enforcement. Enforcement is denied that portion of the order requiring the Company to cease and desist from posting and distributing the notice. The remainder of the case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
FAHY, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the opinion of the court except in the following respects:
1. (a) In Part I, while I agree the Company may "relitigate" the supervisory status of its floorladies, for the reason stated by the court, I think such "relitigation" should be limited to consideration, by the trial examiner and Board, of the floorladies' status on the basis of the evidence adduced in the representation proceeding, provided, however, that upon a showing of good cause therefor the trial examiner or the Board in the exercise of a sound discretion may permit the introduction of additional evidence.
(b) On the remand should the floorladies be found to be supervisors so much of the Board's order as rests upon their activities should be enforced; if otherwise found, the order should be modified as may be required.
2. In Part IV I would sustain the position of the Board as to the notice given by the Company to the employees, believing that it was within the competence of the Board in all the circumstances to find that the notice was coercive. The Board reached this conclusion, "Particularly in the light of the other unfair labor practices found."
Sagamore Shirt Co., 153 N.L.R.B. #27 (1965)
Act of July 5, 1935, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1964). Section 8 of the Act appears at 29 U.S. C. § 158 (1964)
29 C.F.R. 133 (1966)
See Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473, 476-479, 84 S. Ct. 894, 11 L. Ed. 2d 849 (1964); May Dep't Stores Co. v. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376, 66 S. Ct. 203, 90 L. Ed. 145 (1945); AFL v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 60 S. Ct. 300, 84 L. Ed. 347 (1940). If the Board acts outside its jurisdiction, however, such action can be challenged immediately by suit in the District Court. Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184, 188, 79 S. Ct. 180, 3 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1958). The scope of Leedom v. Kyne is a restricted one. Boire v. Greyhound Corp.,supra.
See AFL v. NLRB,supra, note 4, 308 U.S. at 410, 60 S. Ct. 300; Hearings Before Senate Comm. on Ed. & Labor on S. 1000 et al., 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 584-87; H.R. REP. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 56-57.
Cases supra note 4. Section 9(d) of the Act makes it clear that the reviewing court, on appeal from a finding of an unfair labor practice, will have before it, as part of the record, the proceedings in the representation hearing.
See,e.g., United Dairies, Inc., 144 N.L.R. B. 153, 154 (1963); National Van Lines, 123 N.L.R.B. 1272, 1273, n. 4 (1959); but cf. Plaskolite, Inc., 134 N.L.R.B. 754, 755 n. 2 (1961); New Orleans Laundries, Inc., 114 N.L.R.B. 1077, 1086 (1955).
See,e.g., Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 158, 61 S. Ct. 908, 85 L. Ed. 1251 (1941); Rockwell Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 795, 797-798 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 890, 85 S. Ct. 161, 13 L. Ed. 2d 94 (1964); NLRB v. West. Ky. Coal Co., 152 F.2d 198, 200 (6th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 866, 66 S. Ct. 1372, 90 L. Ed. 1636 (1946).
See S.REP. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 29-30 (1959), U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News 1959, p. 2318 in I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959, pp. 425-26 (hereinafter LEG.HIST.); II LEG.HIST. 1326(1) (remarks of Senator Morse);id. at 1722(3) (remarks of Representative Udall).
"The Board is also authorized to delegate to its regional directors its powers under section 159 of this title to determine the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, to investigate and provide for hearings, and demine whether a question of representation exists, and to direct an election or take a secret ballot under subsection (c) or (e) of section 159 of this title and certify the results thereof, except that upon the filing of a request therefor with the Board by any interested person, the Board may review any action of a regional director delegated to him under this paragraph, but such a review shall not, unless specifically ordered by the Board, operate as a stay of any action taken by the regional director." 73 Stat. 542 (1959), 29 U.S.C. § 153(b) (1964)
Courts do not rely upon theories in support of Board action advanced for the first time by Board counsel on appeal. See e.g., NLRB v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 438, 444, 85 S. Ct. 1061, 13 L. Ed. 2d 951 (1965); Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S. Ct. 239, 9 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1962).
See,e.g., Thrifty Supply Co., 153 N.L. R.B. #34 (1965); Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., 152 N.L.R.B. #144 (1965); Duval Engineering & Contracting Co., 132 N.L.R.B. 852 (1961).
See,e. g., National Freight, Inc., 154 N.L.R.B. #47 (1965); Security Guard Service, Inc., 154 N.L.R.B. #4 (1965); Ertel Mfg. Co., 149 N.L.R.B. 312 (1964); Cabinet Mfg. Corp., 140 N.L.R.B. 576 (1963). The standard used apparently comes from the decision in N.L.R.B. v. Southern Airways Co., 290 F.2d 519, 522-523 (5th Cir. 1961).
Shreveport Packing Corp., 141 N.L.R.B. 1255, 1259 (1963) (in absence of objection, trial examiner's opinion adopted pro forma by Board).
We appreciate that the regulation does not automatically provide a stay pending appeal, but compulsory litigation in the representation proceeding (in the sense of litigate now, or lose the right to litigate later) will entail at least the delay incident to a full-blown hearing before the Director, and possibly also a delay where the Board grants a stay on request for review. See § 102.67(b) of the Board's rules. 29 C.F.R. 132-133 (1966)
Regulations are to be construed in the light of their function to constitute a meaningful guide to conduct. If the Board deliberately intended that its regulation overrule the Niederriter result, it should have at least attempted to define the scope of disability to relitigate, i. e., to state what it meant by "related proceedings" beyond a hearing on a complaint issued where an employer refuses to bargain with a certified agent on the ground of impropriety or invalidity in the certification. On a question of this importance it would seem desirable, if not mandatory, to further the objective of regulations as a meaningful guide to conduct by providing one of the "statements of general policy, or interpretations" contemplated by § 3(a) (3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 238 (1946), 5 U.S.C. § 1002 (1964).
We appreciate that the delegation regulation changed the pre-Niederriter situation in one relevant respect. The Board might not be as alarmed about a flood of representation appeals when it was no longer required to consider those on the merits but could dispose of them by denying leave to appeal, denying certiorari so to speak.
Even pretermitting issues of validity and of tolerable scope of res judicata to other proceedings, it is our view, as noted above, that more explicit regulatory language, and probably also accompanying analysis, is requisite before a court will give full scope to a regulation that on its face seems to say: Appeal now or forfeit the right to dispute responsibility for the actions of a small group held to be supervisors, even though they are not important for "election" purposes.
We are not unaware of the objection in terms of strict logic to a result whereby at approximately the same time the same issue is decided in different ways for different purposes. See NLRB v. Scullin Steel Co., 161 F.2d 143, 149-150 (8th Cir. 1947). However, the possible differences in result are related to the Act's objective of reducing threats to and interferences with interstate commerce, such as would be wrought by unnecessary encumbrances in election proceedings, either through comprehensive litigation before the Regional Director or multiplication of petitions to the Board for leave to appeal, e.g., a finding of supervisory status.
NLRB v. Richard W. Kaase Co., 346 F.2d 24, 30 (6th Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Koehler, 328 F.2d 770, 773 (7th Cir. 1964); NLRB v. James Thompson & Co., 208 F.2d 743, 748 (2d Cir. 1953)
The Trial Examiner refers to 47 signatures verified by a Union solicitor. Only 46 names appear in the record
See generally Lewis,The Use and Abuse of Authorization Cards in Determining Union Majority, 16 LAB.L.J. 434 (1965).
See NLRB v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917, 920 (6th Cir. 1965): NLRB v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750. 754 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 830, 86 S. Ct. 69, 15 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1965)
There are also spaces provided for the date, social security number, job, employee's address and the Company's name and location
The complete text of the reverse side of the card is:
"have voluntarily accepted membership in Local Union of the AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA (AFL-CIO), and designate said Union as my bargaining agency in all matters pertaining to wages, hours and other conditions of employment, I hereby authorize my employer (the above named company) to deduct from my wages my dues and initiation fee due to said Union. This authority to make such deduction shall be irrevocable for the period of one year or until the termination date of the collective bargaining agreement between my Employer and the Union whichever occurs sooner, and I agree and direct that this authorization shall be automatically renewed and shall be irrevocable for successive periods of one year each or for the period of each succeeding collective bargaining agreement between my Employer and the Union whichever shall be shorter, unless written notice is given by me to the Employer and the Union not more than twenty (20) days and not less than 10 days prior to the expiration of each period of one year or of each collective bargaining agreement between my Employer and the Union, whichever occurs sooner. If a new worker: this authorization becomes effective at the end of my trial period."
See NLRB v. H. Rohtstein & Co., 266 F.2d 407, 409 (1st Cir. 1959); Freeport Marble & Tile Co., 153 N.L.R.B. #63 (1965)
Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, 87 U.S. App.D.C. 360, 369, 185 F.2d 732, 741 (1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 914, 71 S. Ct. 734, 95 L. Ed. 1350 (1951); NLRB v. Taitel, 261 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 944, 79 S. Ct. 725, 3 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1959)
See,e. g., Surprenant Mfg. Co., 144 N.L. R.B. 507, 510-511 (1963); Rea Construction Co., 137 N.L.R.B. 1769, 1774, 1777 (1962); White Oak Acres, Inc., 134 N.L.R.B. 1145 (1961).
See Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 756, 760 (6th Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 9 (4th Cir. 1962),accord Wellington Mill Div., West Pt. Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 579, 583 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 882, 85 S. Ct. 144, 13 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1964).
"The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." 61 Stat. 142 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 158(c)
See NLRB v. Southwire Co., 352 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1965)
The Fourth Circuit has held similar statements "unqualifiedly privileged under the provisions of section 8(c) of the Act." Wellington Mill,supra note 24, 330 F.2d at 583. Other circuits have upheld the notice without reference to the context in which it was posted. See note 24 supra.
Shay stated in his speech:
"It will be two years next week that I have been here in Spruce Pine, and I have seen this plant grow from the beginning. Girls, as far as my position is concerned, I am not worried, I always have a job to go to."
Shay's reference in his speech to the fact that workers were free to visit him stands against a background of the Company's long-standing practice under which workers were free to visit Shay's office
See,e. g., NLRB v. American Furnace Co., 158 F.2d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 1946); Niskayuna Consumers Cooperative, Inc., 155 N.L.R.B. #23 (1965).
See NLRB v. United Steelworkers, 357 U.S. 357, 363, 78 S. Ct. 1268, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1383 (1958); Gem Int'l, Inc. v. NLRB, 321 F.2d 626, 629-631 (8th Cir. 1963); Kimbrell v. NLRB, 290 F.2d 799, 802 (4th Cir. 1961). But see Allen-Morrison Sign Co., 79 N.L.R.B. 904, 906, 917 (1948)
of D.C. Circuit opinions.


text:
Your Daily Science Source
Our use of other group's copyrighted material – Fair use notice:
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976: Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
This website aggregate content from other sources for informational purposes, and is in no way trying to infringe on the copyrights or businesses of any of the entities.
All content posted up on this site is used under the Fair Use Copyright Law 107. All photos, media, and articles are copyright to their original owners.
Photographic images are owned by their respective copyright owner. Where possible the appropriate accreditation is given. Due to image alterations ownership of many images can not be verified. Where ownership is known a credit is as given.
All videos on this website are embedded from Youtube.com and are owned by their respective Copyright owners. No videos are copied or stored on our servers. The Court ruled that linking or embedding copyrighted videos is not copyright infringement, even if the source video was uploaded without permission. However we will gladly remove any video upon valid request from respective copyright owners. Any owner also have option to disable embedding his Youtube videos on other websites.
News and Press articles are owned by their respective Copyright owner. Where possible the appropriate accreditation or source of the article is given on the same page.
The audio/video files on this site are for listening/watching purposes only. Downloading of these files to one's computer is strictly prohibited. They are owned by their respective copyright owners.
If it is the organization's belief that the usage of specific content used on our site containing copyrighted knowledge conflicts with authorized use, and/or does not comply with fair use as described in this context, contact us through our contact page and we will remove the offending content immediately.
Babies who are cuddled more seem to have their genetics altered for years afterwards
Someone's built an operating system to run after the world ends
This mesmerising underwater blob is actually a huge, rare mass of squid eggs
Scientists can now predict the weird behaviour of oobleck
Astrophysicist who just won the Nobel Prize says we'll never colonise exoplanets
These fish can live on land and breathe air, but authorities are not impressed
Intriguing study suggests humans have hidden 'salamander-like' ability to regrow tissue
Here's what would happen if all the ice on Earth melted overnight
Police Robot on Patrol Completely Ignores Woman Trying to Summon The Police
Scientists have figured out how to extract oxygen from Moon dirt
Voyager mission reveals unexpected pressure at the edge of the solar system
We finally have solid insight into what produces the strongest magnets in the Universe
Nobel prize in physics won by scientists who changed our concept of the cosmos
First-of-its-kind quantum vibration produced by shooting a laser at a diamond
In a quantum first, physicists put 2,000 atoms in two places at once
We just made a breakthrough on a genius concept for eco-friendly batteries
New Simulation Shows Superconductivity Could Be Turned On And Off in Some Materials
Copyright © 2020 by Science News. All rights reserved. All articles, images, product names, logos, and brands are property of their respective owners. All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement unless specified. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Uppingham, Rutland
In 1732, the parish of Hallaton purchased a building for use as a workhouse with money bequeathed for the purpose by the Revd. Benjamin Bewicke. The parish subsequently acquired various property including a close called the Workhouse Close, whose rents contributed to the poor rates.
A parliamentary report of 1777 recorded a parish workhouse in operation in Uppingham with accommodation for up to 40 inmates and at Halloughton [Hallaton] for 16.
A parish workhouse in Belton is believed to have operated in the nineteenth century in the building (now a garage) next to 5 Main Street.
A building on the High Street in Gretton was once used as the parish workhouse.
Gretton former parish workhouse, 2004.
Medbourne's had a parish workhouse from the late 1700s. It was situated on Main Street where the old smithy now stands.
Uppingham Poor Law Union officially came into existence on 23rd April 1836. Its operation was overseen by an elected Board of Guardians, 36 in number, representing its 35 constituent parishes as listed below.
County of Rutland: Ayston, Barrowden, Belton, Bisbrooke, Caldecott, Glaston, Liddington, Morcott, North Luffenham, Pilton, Preston, Ridlington, Seaton, South Luffenham, Stoke Dry, Thorpe by Water, Uppingham (2), Wardley, Wing.
County of Leicester: Blaston, Bringhurst, Drayton, Easton Magna, Hallaton, Holt, Horninghold, Medbourne, Slawston (until 1895), Stockerston.
County of Northampton: Fineshade, Gretton, Harringworth, Laxton, Rockingham, Wakerley.
Later Additions: Beaumont Chase (from 1861).
The population falling within the Union at the 1831 census had been 11,027 with parishes ranging in size from Holt (population 42) to Uppingham itself (1,754). The average annual poor-rate expenditure for the period 1833-5 had been £8,068 or 14s.8d. per head of the population.
Uppingham Union workhouse was built in 1836 at a site on the west side of the Leicester Road at the west of Uppingham. The architect was William J Donthorn who was responsible for the design of many workhouses in the east of England including those at nearby Oakham, and at Ely and Wisbech in Cambridgeshire. The Poor Law Commissioners authorised an expenditure of £4,200 on construction of the building which was intended to accommodate 158 inmates. The site layout and location are shown on the 1902 map below:
Uppingham Site, 1902.
Uppingham entrance from the north-east, c.1916.
Uppingham main block from the east, 1929.
Uppingham from the south-west, 1929.
Uppingham main block from the south, 2000.
Uppingham casuals' block from the west, 2000.
In 1916, the site was taken over by the Red Cross as a military auxiliary hospital and the then inmates were transferred to the workhouses at Oakham and Stamford. The workhouse never re-opened and in 1926 the site was sold for £2,500 to Uppingham School, who remodelled the buildings. The school still occupies the premises.
The Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, Long Street, Wigston Magna, Leicester, LE18 2AH. Relatively few records survive — holdings comprise: Guardians' minutes (1836-1930); Ledgers (1894-1929); Letter books (1913-21); Service registers (1897-1930).
Uppingham — A Picture Book of a Unique School by W Metcalfe (Spiegel Press).


Locating the right Essay Article author | Kavulich and Associates, P.C.
Now How About My Essay Writer? For this reason it's often recommended to employ some professional simply writing help carriers. To produce high quality papers, make certain you get the proper industry experts and selections. Picking the proper simply writing service is an expense-worthwhile transfer, and as well just top notch writes can prove to you that it's a determination you won't ever before repent. As-a whole lot mainly because it is likely to look for many different composing webpages hardly ever discount the value of finding offerings and first-class writers. Acquiring services and products knowledge of your type will unquestionably give excellent remarkable possessions before getting acquainted with. You would need to try out many online websites previously obtaining the one which college essays for sale really works , that would point out spending a lot on newspapers that will be unproductive. You may earn particular your essay will. You be capable to ensure your essay will. How you can get your essay undertaken rapidly and up wards inside the most beneficial quality expectations.
After, you've equipped a old thesis impression, it is likely to proceed in order to make an summarize with regards to your analyze pieces of paper. An essay is an element of simply writing that is designed to build 1 function. Occasionally, you will discover beyond 1 idea. It's possible to select the composing competent you feel is an excellent go with for ones essay conditions. All you want do in order to be given a excellent essay quick is select the produce my report web-site and finish our select online form. Types of My Essay Freelance writer In the event the high school isn't college tuition-completely free, it isn't previously an inadequate concept to realize how you are prepared to have your cash lumbar region any time you reprogram your thinking. Inch really good strategy will be to find a specific thing or anyone disrupt. The Rogerian approach to argument is beneficial at these cases precisely where two principals want to locate a regular flooring. Pupils have to get a great deal of individuals examine their arrangement up to the point it's presented so that you can obtain any challenges. You may get in contact with your creator by our provider dept ought to you have to select some imperative points to build the work even more custom made. Essays is one kind of intention that every variety of college student in basically any immersion has, at just about any level. In case your freelance writer doesn't value deadlines, you'll will need to look in another place. They are happy to examine their knowledge which enable you to write a composition you're in a position to have fun with. They all pass a vital course of action to check on their ability.
In case you determine the marked of presentation arrangement needs to be without a doubt the willpower of verbiage arrangement ought to readily https://www.avemarialaw.edu/academics/ fit within the strive. Like sentences are very important for select and practical supply of creative ideas in a paragraph. If you would like to find out how to make effective essays, make sure that you follow as well as our medical specialist guides. The discounted essay blogger inhibit can be purchased with all the coupon computer code. Our web page is glad to give making and editing assistance with the best possible way. In . approach that essay freelance writers can identify about the amount of service taking care of the material of your website is to accept a look within the domain or Link. You'll must have dissertation composing help who may perhaps pin the blame on you the consultant thesis freelance writers at bestdissertation are listed here in an attempt to help out. Our experts will be sure that you are totally pleased with the earlier model. Encountered and also reasonably priced essay freelance writers are what you can definitely find on Darwinessays. Locate a creator who's so confident in the content that editing and enhancing isn't a concern. Just about every writer we hire has made up a lot of extraordinary written documents pertaining to an issue. Each individual blogger we use has composed a superb bargain of special written documents related to a very own subject matter.
It's will be possible to seek out help from your specified creator. On occasion a freelance writer might not acquire your stage. You don't desire to discover the priciest writer to get the most acceptable for you. Our editors complete a significant operation to visit their precise capabilities. A number of scenarios whenever you stay begin paying attention in the expert essay creators https://samedayessay.org/ look at piece of writing, you imagine you don't have a very good suitable level of suggestion to achieve the material, so so and the ordinarily would mean that you can get started transmitting. This sort of guidance is critical into your method that's aggressive. Our purpose is to aid you to use formulating solutions at the most suitable way. Can be a service plan which extends to you numerous capable authors. A team of experts is able to give you a hand make money with building your very own new essay at virtually any second. Details of My Essay Freelance writer Very well, you'll learn about quite a few all round tips composing. Take notice that you may work with the sum of cash for proofreading and editing expertise too. Our simple buying procedure allows to make certain that you'll get your documents achieved effortlessly. In the event you aspiration any tweaks as part of your document right after it's concluded it is easy to ask revision. What's much more, you'll be as long as through a band of publishers to substantiation-explore the local newspaper. The outstanding pieces of paper authoring service It is the the right location you've visited if you're concerned about the grade of your essay.


The Special Flag is a recurring item throughout several Namco games, originally from Rally X. It appears in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate as an item. When used, the player holding it will hold it up in the air and become immobile. If used successfully and held in the air for three seconds without being hit, the Special Flag will grant the holding player either an extra K.O. in a timed match or an additional stock in a stock match. When the player is hit while holding the Special Flag, they will automatically drop it. Any neutral attack will activate the holding animation, except a dash neutral.
Because of their function, Special Flags do not appear in coin or stamina battles regardless of item settings, nor do they appear in Smash Tour matches.
Arcade Xevious (1983) This item appeared as a hidden object in the 1983 arcade game Xevious. Picking one up would give you an extra life. In Smash Bros., it shows up for you to grab during battles. It may seem like nothing is happening, but holding it high will earn you an extra stock in a stock battle or a KO in a timed battle.
This page was last edited on January 10, 2019, at 20:04.


text:
Q: How to find out the maximum number of datafiles per tablespace in Oracle? According to this Oracle document, the maximum number of database files per tablespace is "Operating system dependent; usually 1022".
I know there are queries for some of the other limits mentioned in that document (e.g. to determine the database block size: select value from v$parameter where name='db_block_size').
Is there a query to determine the maximum number of datafiles per tablespace?  (I tried select name from v$parameter where value='1022' but that returned no rows.)

A:  select count(*) from dba_data_files where tablespace_name='TBSNAME';

A: Use:
select count(1),tablespace_name from dba_data_files group by tablespace_name
If getting close to 1022, you need to start moving the largest and fastest growing objects to different tablespaces.  32TB is the max with a 8k block size, 16k you can get 64 TB and with 32k 128 TB for the max.  However, the larger the block size the more likely you could get hot blocks, so need to think about how they would be used.

A: db block size is a database parameter but maximum number of tablespace or datafile is a physical limit and you can not find them in v$parameter view. You can use documentation for that: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28320/limits002.htm#i287915

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


And I know how I feel. Grateful. Enraged. Mortified. A bit nauseous.
I am free to speak for the first time in two years. My attorney and my probation officer advised against it before. My motion for early termination of probation was granted. I'm still a felon for another year, as per the plea agreement, but I'm free.
Just in time to see the entire country flush their freedom down the toilet, and celebrate it.
It's easy to fall asleep when your eyes are closed. I've screamed for fifteen years on this blog trying to make you hear your airwaves being sold to the highest bidder, to look at the newspapers going Citizen Kane, the networks trading journalism and culture for profit.
I haven't lost my mind. Yet. This isn't rhetoric or a conspiracy theory: THE GOVERNMENT IS OWNED. THE MESSAGE IS CONTROLLED. They aren't even doing a good job of hiding it. The facts are in plain sight. News Corp, Time Warner, and Comcast write the headlines. Do you trust the AP, CNN, any of the networks?
Those three companies own them all. All three of them are top ten contributors to the Clinton campaign. This is public record. Everything after that is a distraction. Do you honestly believe a woman who is on video over and over, for years, insisting that marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman, finally claiming she'd supported gay marriage all along, is a person who values the truth?
It's on YouTube. LOOK IT UP.
The numbers they tell you about the primary votes: Lies. Superdelegates: Lies. A single reporter on a single wire, the AP, claims to call every superdelegate, publishes that Hillary has the nomination, and the lie is published as fact everywhere you trust a day before millions vote. Follow the money. Think.
You can lull others to sleep, people who trust you.
Or you can WAKE UP.
Decent German people didn't change overnight in the 1930s. It started like every modern fascist state started. Control of the message. They knew, in their hearts, it was wrong. But they looked the other way. Until they looked away when a man in uniform shot a neighbor in the head, and something inside of them died.
Then they started to blame the dead for the dead thing in themselves. And they began to resent millions of total strangers for being born.
America has one thing to protect us from something like that ever happening here. It's not the Constitution. It's not any document or law. It's not God's loving grace. And it sure as hell isn't the media. The frightening thing is, Germany had the same defense, and it failed them.
Are you absolutely sure you're awake? Would you stake your freedom on it? How about your children? Are you TOTALLY CERTAIN you have all the facts?
There will not be a second chance to make up your mind. You will not be able to stay home, brother. You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out. The revolution will not be televised.
And when you wake up, know that you are not alone. I'm with you. I need you. We have the company of millions and the Fifth Estate is still ours. THIS IS YOUR COUNTRY. We've opened our eyes and our ears, now is not the time to keep our mouths shut.
Right on, Kyle. I love you! Agree, agree, agree!


ESCP Europe's Research Centre for Energy Management (RCEM) builds strong links between academia, industry and government, to debate the challenges of the new energy era.
Bringing together the expertise of its faculty and international associates, the objective of the RCEM is to cooperate with, and possibly assist, key industry players to facilitate the integration of managerial and technological skills.
Academic Company of the Università degli Studi di Perugia, IGM was born with the aim of developing and industrializing the technical achievements of the academic research in order to spread know-how and technologies.
The high scientific and professional competencies allow the developing of a dynamic and innovative reality that offers consultancies, works on integrated geologic modelling focus on the research and production of georesources, and exports academic knowledge in the industrial world through the organization of high specialization, dedicated and customized formation courses.
XMT provides economics, planning and decision making tools with accompanying analyses for oil and gas exploration and development companies.
Endeavor Management has brought together a very experienced team to support several sectors of the oil & gas industry. Their Expert Advisory Group has designed and executed many operational strategies that your organization may be facing. Their Expert Advisory Group teams include individuals with decades of experience in difficult situations. From reservoir management to decommissioning, our teams include former executives who have tackled the same challenges, now armed with Endeavor's best practices.
Rock Flow Dynamics was established with a clear vision to provide reservoir engineers worldwide with new state-of-the-art dynamic reservoir simulation technology that meets the most demanding modern expectations for raw performance, rich modeling functionality, advanced Graphical User interface capabilities, and smart license pricing. Taking advantage of the non-stop progress in the computing technologies, the company's flagship product tNavigator is designed to ensure continuous improvements in simulation performance and effective handling of the present and future performance bottlenecks. This software is designed for running dynamic reservoir simulations on engineers' laptops, servers, and HPC clusters.
Natural Gas World is an independent specialized website dedicated to bringing you the most essential, accurate and reliable information on global gas matters.
NGW's editorial team comprises accomplished and talented journalists, analysts and experts who provide daily coverage of the latest developments on natural gas, offering unique insight to topical and relevant matters.


Jon Zeosky and Sebastian Castro discuss how algorithms designed in MATLAB® can be deployed as standalone CUDA® code to target NVIDIA® GPUs, and how this standalone code can be used in a development process involving Robot Operating System (ROS).
In the software demonstration, Jon and Sebastian first use a pretrained neural network in MATLAB to create a deep learning classification algorithm. Then, they use GPU Coder™ to generate a standalone library from this algorithm and deploy it to an NVIDIA Jetson™ platform. Finally, they integrate the generated library into a ROS node developed in C++ to connect with other software nodes running on the network.
Download the example files used in this video from MATLAB Central File Exchange.


The way Geographical Indications (GIs) operate has not been well theorised. The main purpose of this article is to develop from the Australian position, a theoretical approach to explain their operation. This objective is based on the assumption that one of the outcomes of political-economic theory is to outline the structural elements of human systems to explain how the various 'actors' involved relate to each other.


text:
Fullwood is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

People
Albert Henry Fullwood (1863–1930), Australian official war artist in the First World War
Bill Fullwood (1910–2005), Australian artist
Brent Fullwood (b. 1963), American football player
Bryce Fullwood (b. 1998), Australian racing driver
Francis Fullwood (died 1693), Archdeacon of Totnes
Harold Fullwood (1920–1993), city judge, St. Louis, Missouri
James Fullwood (1911–1981), English footballer
Reggie Fullwood (1975), Democratic member of the Florida House of Representatives
Walter Fullwood (1907–1988), English cricketer

Fictional characters
 Lyn Fullwood, a character in the British soap opera Coronation Street

See also
 Fulwood (disambiguation)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Asia's largest computer hardware show Computex Taipei cast an extra intense spotlight on startups this year as investors looked for leaders in new technology such as the internet of things. The Taiwanese startup incubator Garage+ stepped forward into that glare with a particularly large showing of 20 young companies.
Garage+, a Taipei-based incubator founded in 2008 by the Epoch Foundation that supports industrial development, came to the show startups from eight countries.
Computex Taipei, though once focused largely on hardware technology, has shifted with the trends toward exhibitors that use artificial Intelligence, cloud computing and big data. Blockchain technology and 5G wireless services were additional themes this year at the June 5-9 event.
Taiwan-based blue chip companies such as TSMC, Quanta Computer, Foxconn helped establish Garage+, which also gets support from the Taiwan government's National Development Council.
For startups in the incubator, Garage+ offers one-on-one meetings with potential partners or investors, visit to IT manufacturer, working space and a booth at Computex 2018. Foreign startups in the program are encouraged to bring business to Taiwan.
This 2-year-old Russian software company offers on-demand photo recognition for brands, faces, products and objects. The software can recognize these features based on photos or videos on websites or in the social media.
Clevapi CEO Timur Luguev told Business Next his software-as-a-service technology combines real-time visual recognition with artificial intelligence. Clients might need the service in retail or personalized customer support.
Luguev said he came to Taiwan in search of business partners, so he applied to Garage+ and has already held some meetings on the island.
Edgehog , founded in 2017 in Montreal, is developing anti-reflection technology that allows screens to be readable under direct sunlight while cutting power consumption.
Edgehog co-founder Calvin Cheng said commercial applications include camera lenses, glasses, smartphone screens and solar panels. Cheng, too, reached Taiwan to find business partners in manufacturing.
The French startup CamToy has developed a robot called Laika. Laika acts as a companion for pet dogs so they don't feel lonely while their owners are away.
CamToy co-founder and CEO Thomas Samtmann adopted a dog named Kimi from a shelter for strays.
An owner of the Laika kit can put a tracker on the dog to get notices via WiFi on a mobile phone app of any unusual behavior such as repeated barking. Laika interacts with the dog by teaching tricks and tossing out treats. Cats qualify, too.
CamToy's"Laika" has won CES Innovation Award 2018. Now people can pre-order Laika on Indiegogo. The 2-year-old firm's kits wll begin mass production next year. Laika, the tracker and a charging base sell for a total of US$300.


text:
MSCD Changing Name to Denver State University
About a month ago, I made this post about the Metropolitan State College of Denver considering a name change. Today the MSCD Board of Trustees voted to change the institution's name to Denver State University.
Here's the news as posted a few minutes ago on the MSCD webpage:
Metro State Board selects new name for the College
The Metropolitan State College of Denver Board of Trustees today voted 5-2 to pursue legislative authority to change the institution's name to "Denver State University."
The decision came at a special public board meeting on the Strategic Name Initiative at St. Cajetan's Center where Sector Brands shared the results of their continuing name assessment. Nearly 100 people attended the meeting.
"We tried to provide as many avenues as possible for all constituents to weigh in on the process," said Board Chair Robert Cohen of the comprehensive research conducted for the Strategic Name Initiative that included a combination of town hall meetings, stakeholder presentations, focus groups, one-on-one meetings and an electronic survey.
More than 8,700 people voted through the survey, with more than 80 percent supporting a new name for the College.
Denver State University and Metropolitan State University of Denver were the two names to emerge as the clear front runners among the following four names submitted for vote. Below is the breakdown of votes.
Denver State University 36.1%
Metropolitan State University of Denver 32%
Metropolitan State College of Denver 17.7%
University of Central Colorado 16.7%
President Stephen Jordan said a bill specifying the new name will be introduced with late bill status in the legislature by the end of the month.
Use this link to open a PDF with the results of their survey and assessment that supported the name change to DSU.
Denver State University… I like it!
By Ken Schroeppel|2011-03-09T14:46:22-07:00March 9, 2011|3 Comments
Matt Pizzuti March 10, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Nice, that was exactly my pick from the beginning!
John March 12, 2011 at 11:45 am
I hope they hold off on the name change till 2012, I think that is when they are going to start offering more graduate programs.
Jessica Sideways March 17, 2011 at 2:46 pm
John, according to their website, the name change will not go into effect until September 2012.


As a Commercial truck driver you haul lots of products, goods and items. Whether it is across town or across multiple states, don't forget to insure your cargo. Whatever the type of Commercial Insurance that your business requires get a free quote today!


text:
/ Literature and the Arts
/ Art and Architecture
/ European Art to 1599: Biographies
/ Catena, Vincenzo di Biagio
Catena, Vincenzo di Biagio
Catena, Vincenzo di Biagio vēnchĕn´tsō dē byä´jō kätā´nä [key], c.1470–1531, Venetian painter. His early work, reflecting the influence of Giovanni Bellini, includes the two paintings of Madonna and Child with Saints in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, and the Academy, Venice. In his later period Catena followed closely the style of Giorgione. The best works of this period are The Doge Loredan Kneeling before the Madonna (Correr Mus., Venice); The Martyrdom of St. Christina (Church of Santa Maria Mater Domini, Venice); and Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter (Gardner Mus., Boston).
See monograph by G. Robertson (1954).
See more Encyclopedia articles on: European Art to 1599: Biographies


text:
This image can be used commercially
Buy an Image LicencePersonalise a Product
Shirebrook Model Village boys AFC football team
Image ref DCBR000128
photographer Copyright Reserved
ImageDate 1924-25
Location Model Village School
Town Shirebrook
By March 1896, when sinking operations began on No.1 shaft of Shirebrook Colliery, the village was invaded by thousands of newcomers from other parts of the country - Nottinghamshire, the West Midlands, even Cornwall - in search of a home and job at the new pit. Work had already commenced on the building of a Model Village for the colliery workers, but it was impossible to keep pace with the massive influx of people. By 1901 Shirebrook's population had leapt from less than 600 to nearly 7,000, a tenfold increase in barely five years with large numbers occupying tents and the old navvies' huts in the open fields, a major and hurried building programme was carried out in the main village by Messrs. F.H. and J.W. Moore. Hastily erected, and just as hastily occupied, these houses were prey to sanitation and hygiene problems, and must have contributed to the terrible typhoid outbreak of the late 1890's that killed 150 young children in four years. The churchyard was filled, extended and filled again, and became a health hazard. At last, in 1899, it was closed, and a new cemetery opened on Pleasley Road. Inevitably such a startling change to the village brought violence, rowdiness and squalor, but that is only half the story. There was also progress, improvement and civic pride. The 1890's also saw the founding of the Carter Lane Board Schools, the setting up of the Shirebrook Gas Company, and the merging with Pleasley and other parishes as part of Blackwell R.D.C. Piped water systems were established, with the 'shire brook' now running underground, and sewers and street lighting gradually installed. In 1904 Shirebrook at last became an independent civil parish, and under the leadership of such entrepreneurs as the Moores and Thomas Moorley embarked on further provision of schools and social amenities. The Catholic and Nonconformist churches, the Baptist School and Model Village school was established in 1901 in the Model village, and later the Central School on Langwith Road.
Personalise a Product
Licensed Image
Coasters sets


The North Central Stockgrowers Association is sponsoring an informational meeting about the Madison Food Park.
This proposed agri-business entity is a food processing plant for beef, pork and poultry slated to be built on 3000 acres near Great Falls. The meeting will be held Thursday at 7 p.m. at Hensler Auditorium at Montana State University-Northern.
Interested producers and members of the public are invited to attend.


text:
\section{Introduction}

Lexical simplification (LS) is a natural language processing (NLP) task that involves automatically reducing the lexical complexity of a given text, while retaining its original meaning \cite{shardlow2014survey,paetzold2017survey}. Since LS has a high potential for social benefit and improving social inclusion for many people, it has attracted increasing attention in the NLP community \cite{vstajner2021automatic}. LS systems are commonly framed as a pipeline of three main steps \cite{paetzold2017lexical}: (1) Complex Word Identification (CWI), (2) Substitute Generation (SG), and (3) Substitute Ranking (SR), with CWI often being treated as an independent task.

In this paper, we present our contributions to the English track of the TSAR-2022 Shared Task on LS \cite{tsar2022}. Focusing on steps (2) and (3) in the pipeline above, the task was defined as follows: Given a sentence containing a complex word, systems should return an ordered list of "simpler" valid substitutes for the complex word in its original context. The list of simpler words (up to a maximum of 10) returned by the system should be ordered by the confidence the system has in its prediction (best predictions first). The ordered list must not contain ties. The task employed a new benchmark dataset for lexical simplification in English, Spanish, and (Brazilian) Portuguese. The gold annotations consists of all simpler substitutes suggested by crowdsourced workers and checked for quality by at least one computational linguist who is native speaker of the respective language (for details, see \citet{10.3389/frai.2022.991242}). Contributing teams were provided with a small sample with gold standard annotations as a trial dataset. For English, this trial dataset consists of 10 instances of a sentence, a target complex word and a list of substitution candidates. The English test dataset consisted of 373 instances of sentence/complex word pairs. Submission were evaluated in terms of ten performance metrics that fall into three groups: (1) MAP@K (Mean Average Precision@$K$) for $K={1,3,5,10}$ candidate words. This metric evaluates a ranked list of predicted substitutes that is matched (relevant) and not matched (irrelevant) terms against the set of the gold-standard annotations for evaluation. (2) Potential@$K$: $K={1,3,5,10}$. Potential scores quantify the percentage of instances for which at least one of the substitutions predicted is present in the set of gold annotations and (3) Accuracy@$K$@top1: $K={1,2,3}$. Accuracy scores represent the ratio of instances where at least one of the $K$ top predicted candidates matches the most frequently suggested synonym/s in the gold list of annotated candidates.

\section{System Description}

Our contributions to the TSAR shared task builds on and extends the approach to unsupervised lexical simplification with pretrained encoders – LSBert – described in \citet{qiang2020lexical} and \citet{qiang2021lsbert}. This approach leverages a pretrained transformer language models to generate context-aware simplifications for complex words. The LSBert simplification algorithm addresses two of three principal subtasks of LS: simplification candidate generation and substitution ranking.

Our approach extends LSBert in the following ways: (1) It utilizes a RoBERTa transformer language model for simplification candidate generation and expands the size of the generated candidate list. (2) It introduces new substitution ranking methods that involve (i) a re-weighting of the ranking features used by LSBert and (ii) the adoption of equivalence scores based on textual entailment to maximize semantic similarity between the target word and its simplification. In submissions (runs) 2 and 3, we further explore the utility of crowdsourcing- and corpus-based measure of word prevalence for substitution ranking. The simplification algorithm underlying the three submissions described in this paper is shown in Algorithm 1. In the following we describe the details of simplification candidate generation (2.1), substitution ranking (2.2) and obtaining equivalence scores (2.3).

\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Lexical Simplification}
\label{algo}
\hspace*{0pt} \textbf{Input: } sentence $S$, Complex word $w$\\
\hspace*{0pt} \textbf{Output: } sorted suggestion list $word\_list$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Replace word $w$ of S into <mask> as $S'$
\State Concatenate $S$ and $S'$ using <s> and </s>
\State $p(\cdot|S,S'\setminus\{w\}) \gets RoBERTa(S,S')$
\State $scs \gets top\_probability(p(\cdot | S, S'\setminus\{w\}))$
\State $all\_ranks \gets \emptyset$
\For{each feature $f$ and its weight $c_f$}
\State $scores\gets \emptyset$
\For{each $sc\in scs$}
    \State $scores\gets scores \cup f(sc)$
\EndFor
\State $rank\gets c_f\times rank\_numbers(scores)$
\State $all\_ranks \gets all\_ranks \cup rank$
\EndFor
\State $tot\_rank \gets sum(all\_ranks)$
\State $word\_list' \gets sort\_ascending(tot\_rank)$
\State $word\_list \gets postproc(word\_list')$\\
\Return $word\_list$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

\subsection{Simplification Candidate Generation}

During candidate generation, for each pair of sentence $S$ and complex word $w$, the LSBert algorithm first generates new sequence $S'$ in which $w$ is masked. The two sentences $S$ and $S'$ are then concatenated and fed into a pretrained transformer language  model (PTLM) to obtain the probability distribution of the vocabulary that can fill the masked position, $p(\cdot|S,S \setminus \{w\})$. The top 10 words from this distribution are considered as the list of simplification candidates.\footnote{Morphological derivations of $w$ are excluded.} Our simplification candidate generation method differs from the one used in LSBert in two ways: (1) the choice of PTLM and (2) the size of the candidate list. \citet{qiang2021lsbert} performed experiments with three BERT models: (i) BERT-based, uncased: 12-layer, 768-hidden, 12-heads, 110 M parameters. (ii) BERT-large, uncased: 24-layer, 1024-hidden, 16-heads, 340 M parameters, and (iii) BERT-large, uncased, Whole Word Masking (WWM): 24-layer, 1024-hidden, 16-heads, 340 M parameters. The results of their experiments indicated that the WWM model obtains the highest accuracy and precision. Here we extended these PTLM-experiments to include RoBERTa models \cite{liu2019roberta} and also experimented with the combined use of BERT and RoBERTa to enlarge the list of substitution candidates. The results of our experiments indicated that optimal results are obtained using the RoBERTa-md: 12-layer, 768-hidden, 12-heads, 125M parameters. To maximize the chance of obtaining at least ten suitable substitution candidates after rigorous filtering based on semantic criteria (see below), we increased the size of the candidate list generated in this step from 10 to 30 candidates.

\subsection{Substitution Ranking}
In LSBert, candidate substitutions are ranked based on four features each of which is designed to capture one aspect of the suitability of the candidate word to replace the complex word. These features are rank orders of candidate substitutions based on four scores: (1) `Pretrained LM (PTLM) prediction' ($B_{PTLM}(sc)$, in LSBert, PTLM = Bert) representing the probability derived from PTLM that the candidate substitution word $sc$ presents at the masked position given the rest of a sentence. (2) `Language model feature' ($L_{PLM}(sc)$) representing the average loss of the context of $sc$, $w_{-m}^{m}=(w_{-m}, w_{-m + 1}, \dots,w_0,\dots, w_{m - 1}, w_m)$, where $w_0=sc$. (3) `Semantic similarity' ($S(sc)$) expressed as the cosine similarity between the fastText vector of the original word and the that of the $sc$. (4) `Word frequency' ($F(sc)$) as estimated from the top 12 million texts from Wikipedia and the Children's Book Test corpus.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/google-research/bert}} In LSBert, the rank of a $sc, R(sc)$, is based on an equal weighting of these four features, as shown in equation (1) and (2).

\begin{align}
    Score(sc) &= \frac{1}{4}\sum_{f\in\{B_{Bert}, -L_{Bert}, S, F\}} rank_f(sc)\\
    R(sc) &= rank_{Score}(sc)
\end{align}
where $rank_f:  SCS \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$:
\[sc \mapsto |\{w\in SCS| f(w) > f(sc)\}| + 1\]
and $SCS$ is the set of all substitution candidates.

In our three submissions to the shared task, we considered three different strategies to derive the above $Score(sc)$: In the first submission (Mantis\_1), we adapted the ranking method as shown in equation (3). $c_f$ is the feature weight for feature $f$ and $c_{B_{Roberta}}=c_F=1, c_S=3$.

\begin{align}
    Score_{run 1}(sc) &= \sum_{f\in\{B_{Roberta}, S, F\}} c_f\cdot rank_f(sc)
\end{align}

This ranking method introduces a re-weighting of the features so as to (i) increase the relative importance of the semantic similarity between the target word $w$ and a substitute candidate $sc$ and (ii) decrease the relative importance of the probability-based PTLM prediction. With regard to the former, the value of $S(sc)$, corresponding to ranked cosine similarity, was increased by a factor of 3 to penalize candidates with low similarity to the target word. With regard to the latter, we decided to drop the language model feature $L_{PTLM}(sc)$ as its correlation with $B_{PTLM}(sc)$ would yield an up-weighting of the importance assigned to the probability of $sc$ to appear in the masked position.

In the second and third submissions (Mantis\_2 and Mantis\_3), we experimented with alternative features for substitution ranking: To this end, we first computed lexical complexity scores for the sentences in the trial data for each substitution candidate using 77 indicators (see Table 2 in the appendix). All scores were obtained using an automated text analysis system developed by our group (for its recent applications, see e.g. \citet{wiechmann2022measuring} or \citet{kerz-etal-2022-pushing}). Tokenization, sentence splitting, part-of-speech tagging, lemmatization and syntactic PCFG parsing were performed using Stanford CoreNLP \citep{manning2014stanford}. We then used each feature to obtain a rank order of substitution candidates and correlated reach ranking with the rank order of substitution candidates provided in the trial data. The top-2 lexical features yielding the largest correlations with the gold standard ranking were selected for substitution ranking for Mantis\_2 and Mantis\_3, respectively. Both of these lexical features concern word prevalence (WP), i.e. they refer to the number of people who know the word: WP\textsubscript{crowd} estimates the proportion of the population that knows a given word based on a crowdsourcing study involving over 220,000 people \cite{brysbaert2019word}. WP\textsubscript{corp.SDBP} is an corpus-derived estimate of the number of books that a word appears in \cite{johns2020estimating}. The corresponding rankings were obtained as shown in equations (4) and (5):

\begin{align}
 Score_{run 2}(sc) &= \sum_{f\in\{WP_{crowd}, Eq\}} rank_f(sc)\\
Score_{run 2}(sc) &= \sum_{f\in\{WP_{corp.SDBP}, Eq\}} rank_f(sc)
\end{align}

Apart from these WP-features, the substitution ranking in runs 2 and 3 was determined by a semantic feature, referred to as the `equivalence score' $Eq(sc)$ (see section 2.3). This score was evoked based on the consideration that semantic similarity measured by cosine similarity of embeddings is not expressive enough \cite{kim2016intent}: Any two words that are frequently used in similar contexts will have a low cosine similarity between the embeddings. Thus cosine similarity often fails to recognize antonyms, such as "fast" and "slow". The next section will provide more details on how equivalence score were obtained.

\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width = 0.83\textwidth]{fig/plotsRes.pdf}
    \caption{Performance ranking based on Accuracy, Mean Average Precision, and Potential scores (k=10). Vertical lines represent the median performance across the 33 submission for each metric. }
    \label{fig:results}
    \vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Obtaining Equivalence Scores}

Lexical simplification needs to preserve the original meaning of the target word. As cosine similarity between embedding vectors can be too permissive, we introduced a stricter criterion based on textual entailment. To achieve this we utilized a language model explicitly trained to the natural language inference (NLI) task of evaluating logical connections between sentences. The central idea is to compute for each substitute word $sc$ a score that quantifies the textual entailment of the original sentence $S$ and its variant $S`$ that contains $sc$. Textual entailment is a directional relation between text fragment that holds whenever the truth of one text fragment follows from another text. The entailing and entailed texts are termed premise ($p$) and hypothesis ($h$), respectively. The relation between $p$ and $h$ can be one of entailment, contradictory or neutral (neither entailment nor contradictory).  To the extent that $p$ and $h$ mutually entail each other, they are considered equivalent. In this paper, the entailment scores were obtained from the `roberta-large-mnli' model from the Hugginface transformer library.\footnote{\url{https://huggingface.co/roberta-large-mnli}} Roberta-large-mnli is a RoBERTa large model fine-tuned on the Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference corpus using a masked language modeling objective \cite{N18-1101}. The entailment score is defined as the probability that $p$ entails $h$:

\begin{align}
    En(p, h) = Prob_\theta(entailment\;|\;  p, h)
\end{align}

where $\theta$ is the parameters of trained roberta-large-mnli. We quantify the degree of equivalence of two sentences (\textit{equivalence score}) as the product of the entailment scores in both directions.  For a given sentence $S$ and the corresponding simplified sentence $S'$, the equivalence score is defined as:

\begin{align}
    Eq(S, S')=En(S, S')\cdot En(S', S)
\end{align}

Apart from their use in the substitution ranking in Mantis\_2 and Mantis\_3, equivalent scores were also used in a postprocessing step in Mantis\_1: Here the list of substitution candidates was pruned after ranking by removing candidates whose equivalence scores were smaller than the mean equivalence score of all candidates.

\section{End-to-end System Performance}

The official results across seven performance metrics\footnote{Four of the ten performance metrics, Acc@1, MAP@1, Potential@1, and Precision@1, give the same results as per their definitions.} are presented in Table \ref{tab:offResults} in the appendix (for details, see \citet{tsar2022}). As the performance metrics are strongly intercorrelated (mean correlation across all metrics = 0.920, sd = 0.071, see also Figure \ref{fig:cor} in the appendix), we focus our discussion here on the results of one metric from each of the three groups: (1) Accuracy.1, (2) MAP.10 and (3) Potential.10 (see Figure \ref{fig:results}). Our best-performing system was `Mantis\_1'. This system reached 2\textsuperscript{nd} rank on both MAP.10 and Potential.10 and 3\textsuperscript{rd} rank on accuracy. Mantis\_1 displayed an improvement over the median performance of +25.56\% on accuracy, +24.13\% on potential.10 and +9.93\% MAP.10. It outperformed the LSBert baseline by +5.9\% accuracy, +4.38 MAP.10 and 3.49\% Potential.10. The two systems whose substitution ranking was based solely on word prevalence and an equivalence score lagged behind the LSBert baseline on two of the performance metrics shown here, suggesting that the improvements of our system over LSBert was mainly due to better substitution ranking, rather than candidate selection. However, Mantis\_2 outperformed LSBert on the Potential.10 metric, suggesting that the inclusion of word prevalence can be fruitfully employed to improve LS systems. In future work, we intend to explore the role these and additional indicators of lexical sophistication for substitution ranking.

\FloatBarrier

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


The demonstration that came to be known as 'Women's Sunday' was the first grand-scale meeting to be organised by the Women's Social and Political Union and saw the largest number of people gathered in Hyde Park for a political purpose. Trains were specially chartered to bring in thousands of suffragettes from all over Britain. Amongst the brass bands, suffrage singers, and banner parades, were 20 temporary platforms erected in a circle around the park for 80 speakers to address the crowds. Demonstrators from Tunbridge Wells attended the rally; one party travelled on a special train service from Tunbridge Wells station to Victoria and another by car. The Tunbridge Wells party arrived at Victoria Embankment to find: 'crowds of men and women already collecting: women in white dresses with scarfs, belts, and hats in the tri-colours were unfurling the banners and placing them in position'. The Kent and Sussex Courier reported the eye-witness account of one of the Tunbridge Wells party in its 5th July edition. "Artificial Flowers in the Union colours, programmes of the seven processions and of the speeches, pocket handkerchiefs with maps of the park and positions of the platforms, and "Votes for Women" badges, brooches, etc., were beingeagerly sold to the processionists and to the crowd.
The report continued: "Mrs Pethick Lawrence, and Mr and Mrs Isaac Zangwill , the leaders of the procession, continuously passed up and down, reviewing and arranging their followers; and Mrs Drummond, known as "General Drummond" who was previewing all the seven processions , came to visit us before we started. She wore her new general's cap and gold epaulettes. All along the route, as we marched to the music of our hands we had crowds to watch us, lining the roads, standing at the doors, and leaning out of the windows. We were cheered at times, but heard very few unfavourable or jeering remarks.
Outside the park gates a huge crowd were waiting and many joined in the procession, the police keeping admirable order."