Clayton Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of CLAYTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. C-2713.-Decided October ^?5, 194,3 DECISION AND ORDER On August 27, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in, the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed thereto. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a brief in support of its exceptions. The Union has not excepted to the findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon request of the respondent and pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on October 19, 1943, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent alone was repre- sented at and participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the respondent, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Clayton Manufacturing Company, Alhambra, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted 53 N L R. B., No. 8. 28 CLAYTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 29 activities for the, purpose of collect've bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in ection 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Alham- bra, California, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Maurice J. Nicoson and Mr. Bartlett Breed for the Board. Mr. Cecil W. Collins, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondent. Mr. William A. R. Smith, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, Cali- fornia), issued its complaint dated June 22, 1943, against Clayton Manufacturing Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that through its officers, agents and employees the respondent: (1) on or about Feb- ruary 13, 1943, questioned its employees about their union participation and solicited their opinions concerning unionization of the plant; on or about the said date, told the employees that certain privileges granted them by the respondent would be taken away if they joined the Union; in or about February 1943, asked certain employees if other employees had been discussing the Union; on or about the said date, told employees that no union was needed or necessary in the respondent's plant; on or about February 13, 1943, told its employees that it would discharge all of them if necessary in order to prevent the plant's 559015-44-vol 53-4 30 DEOISIOTOS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE!LATIiOT' S! BOARD unionization ; on or about the said date, told its employees that it would discharge those who joined the Union; (2) on or about February 16 and 18, 1943, dis- charged George M. Willett and William H. Sothcott, respectively, and has since refused to reinstate them because they joined and assisted the Union and en- gaged in concerted activities with other employees for their mutual aid and protection. The respondent filed an answer in which it denied that it had en- gaged in any of the unfair labor practices, alleged in the complaint,' and alleged certain affirmative matter by way of defense.' Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on August 2 and 3, 1943, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representative All participated in the hear- •ing.' Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues-was affoi ded all parties. At the, beginning of'the hearing counsel for the Board moved that the com- plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the respondent had discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Willett. There was no objection, and the undersigned granted the motion. At the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be amended to conform to the 'proof with respect to such matters as spelling and dates. The- motion was granted without. objection, and a similar motion of the respondent's counsel was granted as to the respondent's answer. Also, at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board and the respondent, respectively, presented oral argument before the undersigned No briefs have been filed with the undersigned, although the parties were afforded an opportunity to do so. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Clayton Manufacturing Company is a California corporation, having its plant and principal place of business at Alhambra, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machinery, including vapor cleaning machines, steam generators, hydraulically operated valves, boring bars and holders, and pro- cessors of cleaning compounds. The principal products purchased by the re- spondent in its manufacture of machinery are steel, brass, electrical materials, transformers, pipes, valves and fittings, and wire for electrical wiring. The total approximate value of the respondent's, purchases during the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1942, was $560,000.' The approximate value of such purchases which originated outside the State of California was'$308,000. Total sale's, ap- proximating $1,588,000, were made by the respondent during the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1942, and the approximate value Of the products shipped to points outside the State of California during that year was $1,368,000.m H THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem- bership employees of the respondent. 1 For a statement of affirmaa a matter alleged in the answer , see "The alleged discrimina- tion against Sotlicott" discussed,intra ' The union representative did not call or interrogate witnesses. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in conaneice within the meaning of the Act. CLAYTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 31 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Intel Terence, restraint, and coercion On February 8, 1943,4 W. A. Schupbach, D. C. Peck and Fred Darlow, three employees of the respondent, approached William H. -Sothcott, another employee, and asked him to write a letter, placing them in communicatibn with the Union. Sothcott agreed to do so, and drafted such a letter the next day, suggesting that the Union had an opportunity to organize the employees at the respondent's plant, and pledging support to the venture. Peck and Schupbach joined Sothcott in signing it, and later that day Sothcott mailed it. Thereafter, on the night of February 13, Sothcott told 0. L. Brown, night foreman of the respondent's machine shop, that he understood Peck was being blamed for organizing activi- ties. Sothcott continued that lie himself, and not Peck, had written the letter to The Union. Sothcott further said to Brown on this occasion, "Red, I guess I have prohalrly stuck my neck out. Some of the boys came to me and asked me to contact the union organization, and write a letter, which I have done . . . We are having a meeting tomorrow afternoon." According to the testimony of Sothcott, Foreman Brown told him on this occasion, "Well, I am sorry, Bill, but we don't need a union here and I would like a chance to adjust the condition here myself. I haven't had a chance to adjust them and I would like a chance to do,so." ` Sothcott further testified that lie told Brown it was too late, as there was to be a union meeting on Sunday, the following day. Brown conceded in his testimony that a conversation with Sothcott about the Union had taken place at about the time described by Sothcott, but gave a different version of it. He testified that Brown told him on this occasion something about a union meeting which was to be held and said, "Well, I guess I am sticking my neck out." Brown testified that he replied to Sothcott, "So far as I know, you are not to me." Since, as found below, Brown made other similar remarks in opposition to the Union at about this same time, the undersigned finds that Brown made the remarks attributed to him by Sothcott as set forth above. The plan of the Union to hold a meeting on February 14 has been mentioned. Roger Van Hernelryck, an employee of the respondent, testified that shortly before this attempt of the Union to hold a meeting, Foreman Brown came to the machine where the former was at work and,questioned him regarding his attitude toward a union ; that Brown stated, lie had not "had any satisfactory dealings with unions," and that he had left his employment "at North American," because the union at that plant had failed to obtain a wage increase for him after trying to do so for about 3 months. Moreover, Bertha 0. Luckey, who was formerly an employee of the respondent and under Foreman Brown's super- vision, testified, that at a lunch period within a week after the discharge of Sothcott,° 'discussed below, Foreman Brown stated, in the presence of a group of employees, that "if the union got in there we would lose our coffee hour, rest periods, wouldn't have any time to smoke, cokes, or anything else." Luckey similarly testified that about that time Harold M Vallentine, superintendent of the night shift, likewise made substantially the same statement to her one night at her drill press, as well as to a group of employees one night during the coffee period. Fred Darlow, the employee, mentioned above, corroborated All dates refer to the year 1943, unless the contrary is indicated. Foreman Brown had only begun to work for the respondent as a night foreman of the machine shop on January 18, but about 2 years previous also had been a foreman tor the respondent. a Sothcott was discharged on February 18. See discussion of "The alleged discrimina- tion against Sothcott," infra. 32 DECISIONS OF NAPLONL&L LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Luckey. He testified that on the night or early morning before the attempt by the Union to hold the meeting on February 14, he was working "a machine away" from Luckey and overheard that portion of the conversation between Luckey and Superintendent Vallentine in which the latter said something "about the coke stands being taken out" and the employees losing their rest periods and coffee. Foreman Brown and Superintendent Vallentine both denied having made statements of the nature attributed to them by Van Hemelryck, Luckey and Darlow as set forth above. In this connection, however, the undersigned was impressed by the testimony of Jack H Petersen, hereinafter discussed, a witness called by the respondent. Petersen conceded, in his testimony, that a written statement offered by the Board, and received in evidence by the under- signed, had been signed and given by him to a Board Field Examiner-prior to the hearing. According to Petersen's written statement. both Foreman Brown and Superintendent Vallentine discussed the Union with Petersen "about a night or so before the Union meeting." Brown and Vallentine. according to the statement, on that occasion talked to various employees in the shop. It recited also, that Brown came tip to Petersen and asked him what he had heard about the Union and what he thought about it; that Brown agreed with a statement, made to him on that occasion by Petersen, that if the Union organized the plant the respondent would possibly do away with rest periods and cigarette and "coke" machines; that later that night Petersen told Vallentine that he saw no- reason for a union in the respondent's plant, and that Vallentine told Petersen, he was of the same opinion as Petersen that there was no need of a union in the respondent's plant. Petersen, when confronted with his signed statement during his testimony, did not deny that the remaiks attributed by him to Brown and Vallentine, as set forth above, were made He conceded having talked with Brown and Vallentine about unions, but professed an inability- to remem- ber the substance cf the conversations. At one point in his testimony he con- ceded, however, that Vallentine. in it conversation with him at his machine,' had signified agreement with him that there were some plants where there was a definite need for unions, but that,there was no need for a union in the respond- ent's plant. Under all the circumstances, the undersigned credits the testimony of Sothcott, Van Hemelryck, Luckey, and Darlow, as set forth above, concerning the statements attributed by them to Brown and Vallentine. The undersigned also finds that Foreman Brown and Superintendent Vallentine made the re- marks to Petersen which be attributed to them in his signed statement, dis- cussed above. The Union's attempt to hold a meeting en February 14 was a failure. Only three employees attended. The next night, February 15, Sothcott spoke to Brown and Superintendent Vallentine in the plant, telling them that they had "practically scared the pants off all the boys in the shop," as only three of them had appeared at the meeting. Sothcott testified that Brown excused himself and went to lunch after this portion of the conversation, but that Vallentine, who continued the conversation, stated that there was no need of a union in the, respondent's plant, and that he "would like a chance to adjust wages, and get the scale where it should be." Vallentine did not specifically deny making this remark as testified to by Sothcott, although lie indirectly denied Sothcott's testi- mony, when he testified that he had "only had woods with one man in the plant . . . with regard to union activties." He stated that this employee was Jack Petersen, who has been referred to above. It is significant that one of 7 Petersen denied in his testimony, that this conversation took place in Vallentine's office, as related in the statement. CLAY'T'ON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 33 the remarks made by Vallentine to Petersen , as found above, on the basis of Petersen's testimony and signed statement , was likewise to the effect that there was no need of a union in the respondent'.4 plant. This evidence, which was elicited from Petersen , is corroborative of Sothcott 's testimony that Vallentine made a similar remark to him. The undersigned credits Sifheott's testimony regarding this remark by Vallentine to him on February 15. Moreover, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Lloyd Bigger, a former employee in the respondent's sub-assembly department , one Merritt,' who had supervision over the employees in this department , during a lunch period in February, stated to the employees in the department , that "if the union came in there Mr. Clayton would close the shop down," and that, in such an event , George Willett,' one of the employees in the department , would be the first employee Merritt would eliminate. Further, according to Bigger's uncontroverted testi- mony, Merritt, , soon thereafter, interrogated Bigger as to whether Willett had ever talked to him about unions. The undersigned credits this testimony of Bigger. For a period of years prior to the hearing the respondent also had been interro- gating all applicants for employment regarding union matters, by means of a written employment application , containing the questions : "DO YOU BELONG TO ANY LABOR UNION? Do you belong to any other organizations? If so, state which." These questions assume significance when considered in connection with the remarks and interrogation about union matters by various supervisory employees, as described above. Under these circumstances , such inquiry would reasonably be regarded by applicants for employment as an interference with union activities . In another case the Board said regarding the use of a similar inquiry in an employment application : We regard the fact that prospective employees have been confronted with the question of their union affiliation upon applying for employment as clearly interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Act.10 The undersigned finds, that by the statements of Brown, Vallentine, and Merritt, and by the use of the questions on the employment application form, as detailed above, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 11 B. The alleged disertintnation against Sothcott William H Sothcott , mentioned above, was employed on the night shift in the respondent 's machine shop as an inspector from September 10, 1942, until his discharge. The complaint alleges, that on or about February 18, 1943, the respondent discharged, and has at all times since refused to reinstate , Sothcott, Merritt did not testify The evidence of his supervisory authority was uncontroverted. ° The allegations of disciimination against Willett were dismissed on the Board 's motion at the hearing, as stated above . The statement is here considered only in connection with the allegations of interference , restraint and coercion. 10 Matter of Adolph Spalek and William J. Zrenclt.k, Co-partners, doing business as Spalek Engineering Company and Society of Designing Engineers, Local 201, Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, CIO, 45 N. L. R . B 1272, 1275. Although the respondent offered evidence that it had hired Theodore W. Toenniges , an applicant who stated his union affiliation on the employment application , the undersigned is nevertheless convinced and has found above that under all the circumstances the practice of using this form of inquiry was an unfair labor practice. 11 The respondent offered evidence that a number of union members were on its pay roll, as indicating that it entertained no bias toward unions. The undersigned finds no merit in this contention . Moreover, the evidence indicates that the respondent did not learn about most of these union memberships until the pendency of the hearing in the instant case. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because he joined and assisted the Union, and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for their mutual aid and protection. The respondent alleges in its answer, and contended at the hearing, that Sothcott was unwilling or unable to do the inspection work assigned to,him, by reason of his, age ,and physical condition; that he made numerous and costly mistakes; and that his position has since been eliminated. Sothcott's work as an inspector consisted of doing spot inspecting of the products turned out by about 27 employees who operated machines in the machine shop. On the first night of his employment, Donald Peck, mentioned above, and Carl Schmidt, another employee, held a conversation with Sothcott on the subject of unions. Scothcott, on that occasion, expressed himself as favoring unions, and on frequent occasions thereafter he similarly expressed himself to other employees in the plant." The circum- stances of Sothcott's preparation and dispatching of the letter to the Union on February 8, 1943, have been detailed above. The text of this letter was as follows : We the undersigned feel that your organization has an opportunity at the present time of organizing The Clayton Mfg Co.'s shop in Alhambra and hereby pledge ourselves to further same under the proper direction. On February 10, after receipt of this letter, William A. R. Smith, the organizer for the Union, called at Sothcott's home. Smith left some "Union cards"" with Sothcott, and the two discussed plans for holding the union meeting the follow, ing Sunday. Sothcott passed out some of the cards at work that night. Five or six of them were returned to him signed. Sothcott's conversation with Fore- man Brown on February 13, when the former assumed responsibility for writing the letter to the Union, and the conversation with Foreman Bi own and Superin- tendent Valletine on February 15, after the unsuccessful attempt of the Union to hold a meeting of the employees, have been discussed above. At about 2 a in., on February 18, Brown came to Sothcott while the latter was at work, and discharged him. Brown told Sothcott, on this occasion, that he was being discharged for inefficiency Sothcott asked if the discharge was not in fact for union activities with respect to the letter he had written. Brown denied to Sotlicott that the discharge was for that reason, whereupon Sothcott stated that it looked "kind of fishy." Sothcott's employment with the respondent was terminated, accordingly, at the close of his shift on that date. The position of inspector on the night shift, in the machine shop was at that time abolished. Brown, thereafter, not only continued as foreman, but also assumed the inspection duties which had previously been performed by Sothcott. The respondent, by distributing among other employees some of the duties form- erly performed by Brown, eliminated the use of a full time inspector on the night shift. This new plan of operation was similar to that which it had been using on the day shift for some time prior to Sothcott's discharge. Although it is thus clear, that the respondent eliminated Sothcott's position upon his discharge, the issue remains whether it discharged Sothcott for inefficiency and because his job was being eliminated or because of his union activity. If it discharged him for union activity, the subsequent elimination of his position would be no defense. Sothcott s physical condition, during his employment, was such as to present the respondent with a problem He, is 57 years old, weighs 240 pounds, and has a foot ailment which causes him considerable suffering when it is necessary 12 There is nothing in the evidence to warrant the finding that this knowledge was brought to the attention of the respondent prior to February 13, when Sothcott had the conversation with Brown , hereinbefore referred to under Section III-A. 32 Apparently the cards were membership applications. CLAYTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 35 for him to be on his feet. Sothcott conceded at the hearing, " . . . I have a growth growing on the heel bone, and when I am on my feet a lot I suffer ter- ribly.',,' About the middle of January, prior to his discharge, this foot ailment caused him so much discomfort that he was obliged to report to Vallgntine that it was painful for him to stand on his feet. At the same time Sothcott also complained to Vallentine about having some stomach trouble. Vallentine then suggested that Sothcott adopt the practice of collecting at the machines the various pieces, gauges, and blue prints which had to be used in his inspection work, and sit at a bench while doing the actual inspecting Sothcott adopted this practice, and a special bench was made and assigned to him for such use. It was not possible, however, for him to do all the work in this fashion. He conceded in his testimony that the procedure was not always practicable. Brown, who had become night foreman of the machine shop on January 18, 1943," testified that he discovered Sothcott's work was unsatisfactory about a week later. Brown mentioned in his testimony various items of Sothcott's in- spection work which he regarded as unsatisfactorily done, and further testified that he had talked to Sothcott on repeated occasions between that time and the date of Sothcott's discharge about various items of inspection work which Brown deemed unsatisfactory." Vallentine testified, moreover, that at the time Soth- cott mentioned his foot and stomach ailments, he told Sothcott that too many parts were being checked incorrectly. Sothcott denied in portions of his testi- mony that any of his superiors had expressed dissatisfaction with his work until Brown did so when discharging him He conceded at another point in his testi- mony, however, that early in February, Vallentine had told him that he was "no inspector." As there is no evidence that the respondent had knowledge of Sothcott's union activity until February 13, when he discussed the letter incident with Brown, it is reasonable to conclude on the basis of Sothcott's own testimony that Vallentine's criticism of Sothcott's work on that occasion was before the respondent acquired this knowledge. The undersigned so finds. Under all the circumstances the undersigned is also convinced and finds that Brown had made some criticism of Sothcott's work before the latter wrote the letter to the Union." Apart from the actual fault found by the respondent with Sothcott's work, the evidence raises serious question, moreover, as to his qualifications for doing inspection work. Prior to his, employment with the respondent he had no experience as an inspector. He testified that his experience as a machinist qualified him for such work, but conceded on cross-examination, that he had not worked at his trade as a machinist for about 15 years prior to his employ- ment by the respondent 17 It is significant that neither Peck nor Schupbach, who along with Sothcott signed the letter sent to the Union on February 9 as related above, was there- after discharged. The respondent, after the latter incident, was active in See footnote 5, supra. 1s Brown testified, that about a week after January 18 when he became foreman, he noticed Sothcott's work was unsatisfactory and be talked to Sothcott about some pipe threads which were improperly inspected ; that he thereafter talked to Sothcott six or seven times about the matter of defectively inspected pipe threads ; that the night before Sothcott's release he talked to Sothcott about a faultily inspected tank valve flange ; that the night of Sothcott's discharge he spoke to the former about some pump heads that "had gone through and had to come back and be re-worked"; that there had been similar previous difficulty with this, and also another type of pump head ; and that he had asked Sothcott several times to make periodic inspections, as Brown did not think Sothcott was "doing a very good job of it." 16 Sothcott was given an increase in pay about the time of his discharge. As such increases were 'more or less routine after a few months of employment, Sothcott 's, increase is uninauressive as an indication that the respondent regarded him as efficient. 17 Sothcott's work, for several years prior to his employment with the respondent, had been that of a proof reader for several newspapers. 36 DECISIONS OF NAiPLO' AL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD obtaining a draft deferment for Peck, 8 who ultimately, on or about May 25, -1943, left the respondent's employment to enter service in the armed forces of the United States. Schupbach, similarly, was not discharged, but left the employ of the respondent on his own accord on or about February 26, 1943. At that time, the respondent's plant manager, Ethert M. Barrett, tried to persuade Schupbach not to leave the respondent's employ. The sequence of events, as set forth above, creates grave suspicion that Sothcott may have been discharged for union activity. The anti-union remarks of the respondent's supervisory employees, as detailed above, make it impossible for the undersigned to conclude that Sothcott's superiors were friendly to the Union. However, the undersigned is convinced from the evidence that the respondent was dissatisfied with Sothcott's work, and had on some occasions criticized it before he wrote the letter to the Union and engaged in other union activity. The undersigned is further convinced that Sothcott's physical inability to move about the plant with facility in the course of his inspection work pre- sented a worrisome problem to the respondent. Moreover, the respondent's attempt to keep in its employ both Peck and Schupbach, who jointly with Sothcott had signed the letter written to the Union, is significant. The under- signed finds that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sothcott. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend-that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting, commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of William H. Sothcott. l8 The respondent helped effect two such deferments for Peck, but only one after the union activity in February. It is clear that the respondent had knowledge of Peck's union activity. It is doubtful, however, that the respondent had such knowledge as to Schupbach, as there is no direct evidence of it. CLAYTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS 37 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the undersigned hereby recommends that the respondent Clayton Manufacturing Company, Alhambra, California, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representMives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it,,., is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 of these recommendations ; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure-of employment of William H. Sothcott. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rbchambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. WM. B. BARTON, Trial Examiner. Dated August 27, 1943.