D. D. Bean & Sons Co.

.In the Matter of D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 1-C-.790.-Decided September 16, 1948 DECISION AND ORDER On May 27, 1948, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 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 take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and supple- -mental exceptions 2 to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner .at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions, supplemental exceptions and supporting -briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, but with the exceptions, modifications, and additions set forth below. 1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.} We agree with this finding, but 1 Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial Examiner found were violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, except that the .proviso to the former Section 8 ( 3) has been modified in a manner not material to a determi- nation of the issues here 2 The Respondent was permitted by the Board to file supplemental exceptions on November 19, 1947, in light of the intervening amendments to the Act 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the Boaid has dele- gated its powems in connection with this case to a thiee-man panel consisting of the under- signed Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock] 4 The Respondent filed no exceptions to the Trial Examiner's finding in this respect 79 N. L. R. B , No. 98. 724 D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 725 only insofar as it is predicated upon the following conduct of the Respondent as detailed in the Intermediate Report.' (a) The interrogation of employees Kohanski and Schofield by Vice-President Vernon Bean at the time they were hired as to their union affiliation; - (b) The statement made by Vernon Bean to Kohanski on or about April 23, 1946, that he believed Kohanski and others were taking an active part in the union movement and he was going "to take care of that" ; (c) Vernon Bean's remark to Kohanski in September 1946, in con- nection with Bean's conditional offer to reinstate Kohanski following his discharge, that "if the Labor Board forces me to take you back, and there is no doubt that the Union will come in, you may find things rather unpleasant; sort of disagreeable like. Yes, possibly beyond control" ; (d) Vernon Bean's attempt in September 1946 to induce Kohanski, by threats of reprisal and promise of benefit, to withdraw his charge of discrimination in this case and to sign a statement that he had been laid off for economic reasons. We find that the Respondent's conduct in each of the foregoing respects was per se violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that employees Hintz and Kohanski were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, we, like the Trial Examiner, find that the decision on the part of the Respondent to re- duce its working force on or about April 24, 1946,,was not in itself discriminatory. We find, however, that the Respondent utilized the need to reduce its working force as a means of discrimination by select- ing Hintz and Kohanski for lay-off because it believed they were active on behalf of the Union. Hintz, the leader of the union movement, carried on his union activi- ties openly in the plant in the presence of his fellow employees 8 and supervisors. Vernon Bean's remarks to Kohanski on April 23, 1946, 5 In paraphrasing some of these statements taken from credible testimony in the record, the Trial Examiner has failed to include material portions of these statements which we describe herein. "See N L. R. B v Continental Oil Co., 159 F. (2d) 326, 328 ; N. L. R. B. v. Elastic Stopnut Corp , 142 F. (2d) 371, 377. T For reasons stated in Matter of the Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 N L R B 577, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's unfair labor practice finding with respect to the "forced assembly" aspect of President D D Bean's speech of April 24, 1946 Nor, for reasons stated in prior decisions , do we base our 8 (1) finding, as did the Trial Examiner. on a course of conduct or "totality" of conduct theory. See Matter of The Bailey Company, 75 N L R B 941. 8 That information of these activities was likely to reach management is further shown by credible testimony that certain of the female operators ordinarily brought such matters to the attention of Gelinas , the plant superintendent 809095-49-vol 79-47 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as discussed in detail above, indicate the Respondent's admitted aware- ness of Kohanski's previous activities in a union of employees at another plant in town and a firm belief by the Respondent that Kohanski was assisting the organization of employees at the Re- spondent's plant. In point of service with the Respondent, Hintz and Kohanski were the two most senior of the machinists hired since September 1945. While recognizing the factor of seniority as a standard, the Respondent alleges that special considerations prompted it to retain employees with less seniority than Hintz and Kohanski. Thus, the Respondent contends that Sirois and Koski were retained as veteran trainees ; that De Grampre was retained because of his quali- fications as a millwright ; and that Maurice Reynolds was retained to act as assistant to his brother , Foreman Leonard Reynolds. Under the facts in this ease, we, unlike ' the Trial Examiner, are unable to accept, as plausible and convincing , this explanation ad- vanced by the Respondent for departing from seniority standards in effecting the lay-offs . The Respondent was under no compulsion to retain Sirois and Koski as reinstated veterans . The Respondent made no effort to show, nor can we perceive , any compelling advantage to be gained by it in keeping these employees as machinist trainees while laying off Hintz and Kohanski , who were qualified, experienced,, and productive machinists . De Grampre was hired as a machinist and utilized by the Respondent solely for machinist work both before and after the lay-offs. There is no evidence that de Grampre was more qualified to perform such machinist work for the Respondent than Hintz and Kohanski. Nor are we persuaded, in these circumstances, as to the Respondent's bona fides in especially retaining Maurice Rey- nolds allegedly to act as assistant foreman under his brother, Leonard. Vernon Bean's statements to Kohanski , discussed above, that he knew of the union movement in the plant ; that he suspected Kohanski and others of being active union proponents , and that he was going "to take care of that," coupled with the Respondent's departure from seniority standards in the selection of Hintz and Kohanski for lay-off, clearly demonstrates an affirmative design on the part of the Respond- ent to rid itself of the two employees 'believed to be responsible for bringing the Union into the plant. Moreover, the Respondent's offer in September 1946 to reinstate Kohanski with full back wages if he would withdraw his unfair labor practice charges before the Board and sign a statement that he had been laid off because of lack of work, further supports our conclusion as to the Respondent's discrim- D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 727 inatory motivation. Accordingly, we find that Hintz 9 and Kohanski were discriminatorily selected for lay-off in order to discourage mem- bership in the Union " 3. We concur in the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Coll and Schofield were not discriminatorily discharged, as alleged, and find' that they were laid off pursuant to the Respondent's economic reduc- tion in force. Although the circumstances surrounding their selec- tion for lay-off raise a suspicion of discrimination, there is no evidence that they participated in the attempt to unionize the plant or that the Respondent had any reason to believe that they were active union supporters. We therefore find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the record fails to support the allegations of discrimination as to them. 4. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the discharge of Victoria McGinnis allegedly for the infraction of a, company rule was a mere pretext and that the actual motive for her discharge was a belief by the Respondent that she had been a protagonist of the Union. In reaching this conclusion, we place particular reliance upon the admission of D. D. Bean. Jr.. to McGinnis at the Christmas party in 1946 that he believed her denial as to any participation in the Union, but that "they" 11 had been given to understand that she had been involved in the union organizational campaign. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , D: D. Bean & Sons Co., East Jaffrey , New Hampshire,, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in the United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of,employment or any term or condition of employment; we find no merit to the Respondent 's contention in its supplemental exceptions and brief that Hintz was ]aid off for inefficiency The record shows that 2 months after Hintz was hired his work was found unsatisfactory and lie was given an alternative by the Respondent of taking a cut in pay and a lesser assignment or of being discharged Hintz chose the former , and his efficiency on the new assignment evoked no criticism from the Respondent for the 5-month period preceding his lay-off to N L R B. v Bird Machine Co , 161 F (2d) 589 , 592 , utter of Morrison Turning Co., Inc. 77 N L R B 670 11 Like the Trial Examiner, we interpret "they" in this context to mean the Respondent's officials I 728- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form „labor organizations, to join or assist United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor brganization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives 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 Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Phillip Hintz immediate and full reinstatement to the position which he occupied on April 24,1946, prior to the Respondent's discrimination against him, or to a substantially equivalent position, -without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Phillip Hintz, A. James Kohanski, and Victoria McGinnis for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination agaiiist him or her, in the manner provided in the, section of the Intermediate Report herein entitled "The remedy"; (c) Post at its' plant in East Jaffrey, New Hampshire, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report herein marked "Appen- dix A." 12 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint insofar as it alleges (a) that the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by a speech delivered by its president, D. D. Bean, on April 24, 1946, and (b) that the Respondent discharged Albert Coll and James Schofield iii viola- tion of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,-dismissed- 12 This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para- graph thereof the words "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER " In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted in the notice, before the words "DECISION AND ORDER" the words "DECREE OF THN7 UNITED 'STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING " D: D. BEAN"- W SONS ' CO. 729 -INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Thomas H. Ramsey. for the Board. Messrs Robert IV . Upton. and Fa edei ick K. Upton, of Concord. N. H, for the respondent. Mr. Lubert Taylor, of Gardner , Mass, and Mr. William Gilbert , of Boston , Mass., for'the Union. STATEmr,NT OF THE CASE Upon a second amended charge filed on October 25, 1946, by United Furniture Workers of America, C I 0., herein ,called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the First Region (Boston. Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated March 7, 1947, against D D Bean & Sons Co.. Jaffrey, New Hampshire, herein called the respondent The complaint alleged that the respondent had engaged 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 com- plaint, the second amended charge, and a notice of hearing were served upon the respondent and the Union With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance : (1) that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) and (3) oPthe Act by discrimi- natorily discharging, on April 24, 1946, Albert Coll, Phillip Hintz, and James Schofield : on April 29. 1946, Victoria McGinnis: and on May 2. A .James Kohan- ski, because of their Union activities and thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and (2) that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by (a) questioning employees about their union affiliations, (b) requiring em- ployees to attend a speech made by an official of the respondent to discourage union activity, and (c) offering an employee economic benefits and a payment of cash if he would withdraw his claim for 'reinstatement filed under the Act. In its answer, filed March 18. 1947, the respondent denied generally its commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and made certain affirmative allegations concerning the discharges. ' Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from April 7 to April 10. 1947, inclusive,, at East Jaffrey, New Hampshire. before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly- designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent appeared. by counsel, and the Union by representatives. All parties participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce- evidence bearing upon the issues. At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a joint motion of, coun- sel for the Board and counsel for the respondent, to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced as to dates, spelling of names, etc. Ruling was reserved upon a motion by counsel for the respondent to dismiss all allegations of the complaint as to the discharged persons. The hearing was closed after oral argument before the Trial Examiner by counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent After the close of the hearing, on May 3, 1947, counsel for the respondent filed with the Trial Examiner 11eiptests for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law The Trial Examiner accepts the following findings pi oposed by counsel for the respondent : 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I 13, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, and rejects proposed findings Nos 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; 34, 35, and 36.' i On the same date counsel for the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the com- plaint as "to each and every charge therein contained." Since the respondent's answer admits certain allegations of the complaint, as to commerce matters, it is assumed that this motion relates only to the allegations of unfair labor prac- tices. In any event, this motion and the motion to dismiss made orally at the hearing by counsel for the respondent are disposed of in the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE RUSINFSS OF THE RESPONDFNT The respondent, D. D. Bean & Sons Co., is a New Hampshire corporation, hav- ing its principal office and place of business in East Jaffrey, New Hampshire, where it is engaged in the selling of book matches and advertising, and in the manufacture, sale and distribution of imprinted book matches. In the conduct of its business the respondent purchases annually raw materias, consisting principally of paper products , chemicals, glue, and printers ' ink, valued in excess of $200,000 of which more than 90% is shipped to the respondent from points outside the State of New Hampshire During a similar period the re- spondent manufactures finished products and sells book match advertising valued in excess of $300,000, of which more than 90% is.shipped and sold to points outside the State of New Hampshire? 1 II THE ORGANIZATION IN%OLVED United Furniture Workers of America, C10. is a Jabot organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues and relevant, undisputed events The respondent 's book-match making plant , which has been in operation since 1938, is located in a small community of about 2500 population . It employs approximately 150 persons, many ,of whom are , women opel ators of machines -which automatically assemble matches and their - book covers . Also employed is\a relatively small number of machinists-before the end of the war about 5--- who keep the machinery in repair , and make machines and spare parts. During the period herein concerned the respondent had in operation 3 match machines and 12 assembly machines. In late 1945 plans were made for doubling its production of book matches. These plans called for the construction of at least 3 new match or stripper machines and 8 or 9 assembly machines. The respondent also considered the manufacture of match and assembly machines i For purposes of accurate ruling, the Trial Examiner has rejected several of the pro- posed findings as numbered, although as will be noted hereinafter certain portions of such proposed findings have been adopted . As numbered by counsel for the respondent, there are many findings of fact proposed and contained in the same paragraph. 3 The above findings are based upon a stipulation of counsel for the Board and for the respondent at the hearing. D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 731 for sale to other manufacturers . During the latter part of 1945 the floor space in the machine shop was enlarged fourfold and-new machine tools were added for the construction of match and assembly machines The President and founder of the respondent is D D Bean His son , Vernon, is general manager ; and another son, D D Bean , Jr, is treasurer and sales manager. Leonard Reynolds is the foreman of the machine shop; Arthur Gelinas is production manager ; and George Chamberlain is assistant production manager. All of these individuals , of management capacity, are involved in evidence relating to the issues in this case. The major issues include the termination of employment of one girl assembler and four machinists . In substance, the question posed is whether these em- ployees were discriminatorily discharged , thereby discouraging membership in the Union, or whether , as to the machinists, they were laid off in an economic reduction of force and, as to'the female employee, her discharge was solely a disciplinary measure. The principal events occurred in the latter part of April and early May, 1946. There is no conflict in evidence establishing that: ( 1) the first organizational meeting of the Union was scheduled for April 25; (2) that management was aware of the plans at least by the afternoon of April 24; ( 3) that on the after- noon of April 24, D. D. Bean made a speech concerning the Union'to the assembled employees ; ( 4) that Phillip Hintz, leader of the effort to organize , was one of the 3 machinists discharged in the afternoon of April 24; and (5 ) that April 22 is the date appearing upon both a letter to employees announcing the Union meeting , and a letter to the respondent , from a supply house, 'informing it that certain, equipment , about which the respondent had previously made inquiry, could not be delivered for 20 months after placement of an order . It is also undisputed that none of about 30 female employees, to whom invitations were mailed, attended the Union meeting on April 25 and that Victoria McGinnis, who talked with the Union organizer outside .the hall on the night of the meeting, was ordered, the next day, to be discharged. B. The speech of D D. Bean on April 24, 19116 During the 3 years of the plant operation before April 1946, according to the testimony of Vernon Bean, the respondent had never been "bothered" by a union. During his testimony, President D. D. Bean expressed his attitude toward self-organization as follows : . . . I was the most surprised man in this courtroom the other day to see one of my former employees tell me that lie was the instigator of bring- ing a union in. Had I been told that by anyone else but him, I would have called the man a liar. I didn't believe it. I didn't believe I had an employee that would do that to me. I didn't believe it. By Wednesday afternoon, April 24, a number of the girl employees had brought with them to the plant circulars and the letters announcing a meeting to be held the following night. It also appears that a rumor was circulating to the effect that unless the employees joined the Union, the respondent's sources of supply would be cut off. After a management conference, at about 3 o'clock, Gelinas sent instructions throughout the plant for all employees to assemble. Em- ployees about to leave the first shift and employees arriving for the second shift gathered as instructed.! D. D. Bean addressed them. In substance, during his talk of 5 or 10 minutes, Bean told them: (1) that they could go to the Union 732 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meeting if they wished to; (2) that he had never gone out looking for trouble and hoped that none of his employees would do so. ( 3) that his door was always open to anyone with grievances ; (4) that if any of the employees were dissatis- fied he would help them to get work elsewhere , and (5 ) that the rumors regard- ing the Union control of sources of supply were baseless Bean also cited the many benefits his employees were already receiving, such as accident and sickness insurance and Christmas bonuses 3 That Bean intended by his speech to discourage attendance at the Union meet- ing is implicit in the following quotation from his testimony. I didn' t want them to reel that I was trying to-influence them In fact, we have an intelligent people. The local people of this community as a whole, in my opinion, are intelligent , an intelligent class of people, very intelligent . And if I had gone in there and threatened then or told them something else-which would be just what the Union would have loved me to do , it would have been forcing sonic of my people to -o to the Union Well, I didn 't propose to do it that way. I wanted to give them an op- portunity to do as they saw fit. Not as I wanted them to do . I believe out of respect to me, hardly any people would go under those conditions. That is what I think my people think of me. 'The speech had the effect he sought None of the girls went into the meeting hall the next evening, and only one male employee , in addition to three discharged on April 24, was present. C. The discharges of Phillip Hintz, A James Kohanskt, Albeit Coll, and James Schofield - 1 Events leading up to the discharges From September, 1945. to April 24, 1946. the respondent hired nine new, or former employees, including the four above named. who thereafter worked in the machine shop' Some of these employees were assigned 'to a second or night shift, which was started when Albert Coll was hired on October 22. 1945. The night shift continued in operation. with a varying number of employees, until April 24, 1946, when it was discontinued. Since that date no new machine shop help has been employed. Relevant facts concerning Hintz, Kohanski, Coll and Schofield are summarized below. Phillip Hintz. Hintz was hired by Vernon Bean on October 1, 1945. He was told that he might later be assigned to a night shift, and upon the establishment of a second shift about 3 weeks later, Hintz began to alternate, working (lays for 2 weeks and nights for a similar period. During the week beginning April 22, 1946, Hintz was working days. 3 The above findings as to Bean 's speech rest upon the credible testimony of witnesses called by the Board and by the respondent Bean himself denied that lie said anything on this occasion except to answer the inquiry 'about the possible cutting. off of supplies. He declared that he did not believe he spoke for more than 1 minute At another point, however, he stated that he told the employees that the "meeting or the Union" was "strictly" their business 4-Two of this number, Sirois and Koski, were given employment as veteran trainees; Koski was entitled to employment foi at least 1 year, since the respondent was his em- ployer at the time he entered the military sei vice. D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 733 About 2 months after being hired, Hintz' rate of pay was cut by,the super- intendent. Hintz protested to Vernon Bean, but was told that if he was dis- satisfied with the pay he could quit. The employee thereupon visited a union organizer in a neighboring community. After a number of unsuccessful efforts to meet Lubert Taylor, representative of the Union, a conference was held in March 1946, when plans were discussed to organize the respondent's employees. It was decided to delay, temporarily, active organization because of the feeling which had been aroused among townspeople by a strike then in existence in another plant of the same town. Hintz and Taylor agreed to try first to interest the lower paid female employees in the Union, and from time cards Hintz com- piled a list of about thirty names. The list was given to Taylor, and on Friday, April 19, the Union representative arranged to use a local meeting hall the follow- ing Thursday, April 25. In the meantime, Hintz told a number of the girls in the plant of his activities. On Monday, April 22, letters of invitation and circulars were sent by Taylor to Hintz and to the girls on the list Hintz received several circulars on Tuesday and placed them on top of his tool box on the work bench. During the afternoon and the next clay. he gave circulars to A James Kohanski and other employees 5 Hintz attended the plant meeting, previously described, at which D. D. Bean spoke on Wednesday afternoon, and upon retuin to his work was sent by Foreman Reynolds to Production Manager Gelinas. Gelinas informed him that due to shortage of materials the respondent was going to discontinue building assembly machines and that it was necessary to lay him and others off. Hintz was given his pay in full and since that date has not been recalled to work. A. James J ohanskii. Kohanski i% as hired in the latter part of September 1945. Before his employment by the respondent he had worked for another company in the same small town, where he had been an active member of a union Upon applying for work with the respondent, Kohanski was asked by Vernon Bean if he belonged to a union. Kohanski replied that he had belonged when with the other company, because other employees did Kohanski was hired as a laborer on the "strippers," or match machines. He was told by Vernon Bean that he might later give hum work in the muachine shop, which lie hoped to expand After about 2 weeks of work on the strippers, Kohanski was transferred to the machine shop Despite the claim of Vernon Bean at the hearing that Kohanski was considered to be a part of the night shift, from the date of his hiring until April 24, 1946, the employee was never assigned to, or worked upon, the night shift. In the early afternoon of Tuesday, April 23, Kohanski went to another part of the plant and obtained from Phillip Hintz a Union circular A few minutes after returning to his machine with the circular, lie was approached by Vernon Bean. Bean told him that lie understood a union was trying to organize, and informed him that it he was not satisfied with "the way the place was being run" he could quit. Kohanski remarked that lie was less worried at the moment about this matter than about the fact that lie was going to the hospital the next "On direct examination Hintz testified that lie did not work on Tuesday On cross examination he testified that he was sick on Tuesday but could not remembei, in effect, whether or not he was sick the entire day His time card shows that he worked Tuesday afternoon, April 23 The testimony of Kohanski establishes that he received a circular from Hintz on Tuesday afternoon. 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD day Bean then inquired as to his hospital appointment and finally told the employee to see him upon his ietmn before he event to work Later during the same afternoon Kohanski was summoned by Vernon Bean. In substance, Bean told him that he knew the Union was to hold a meeting on Thursday. that he believed the employee was taking an active part in assist- ing the Union, and that he did not want the CIO in the plant. After close of work that day Kohanski approached Vernon Bean in the town square, and remarked that he was worried about his job. Bean told him that he had known of his union activities at the other plant, had hired him against his better judg- ment, but had hoped the employee had learned a 'lesson. Bean then said he would talk it over with him further when he got out of the hospital 7 Kohanski reported to Bean on May 2. Bean told him that because of material' shortages it would be necessary to "let him go" f u some mont:'s, but that ns for the Union matter, he was "in the clear" and need not woiry x Kohanski's job was not discontinued. Foreman Reynolds testified that he and his brother did most of his work after Kohanski left. On May 6 the respondent was notified by the Regional Office of the Board that the Union had filed charges alleging that Kohanski's discharge , among others was in violation of the Act. In September 1946, Vernon Bean called Kohanski to the plant late one night and, in substance, offered to put him back'to work and to pay him a sum of money equal to his back wages if he would withdraw his charges and sign a statement to the effect that he had been laid off due to lack of work. Kohanski demurred, and asked for time to consider the matter. Bean further told him that if lie returned he would be expected to mind his own business , and that if the Board ordered reinstatement and the Union came into the plant, Kohanski might find things "disagreeable." Bean then said that he would call Kohanski soon. A few days later Bean called and was told by Mrs. Kohanski that her husband had left a message that he was ready to go back to work whenever the job was ready but did not want to sign any papers. Bean replied that that was all right, and that he thought the job would be ready in about a week. About a week later, after conferring with his attorney, Bean wrote to Kohanski, asking him to report for work on September' 30. On the Saturday before September 30, Kohanski went to the plant. He told Vernon Bean that he would take the job, but wanted to know about the back pay. Bean replied, in effect, that there would be no O 'Vernon Bean admitted having approached Kohanski on Tuesday , and having told him that he had some "bad news " for him , and then having withheld it when learning that the employee was going to the hospital . Bean denied having said anything about the Union, but did not deny having told Kohanski that he could quit if not satisfied . Kohan- ski's version is more reasonable to believe , in view of the self-contradictory nature of Bean's testimony Bean testified that be told Foreman Reynolds , the preceding Friday, not to inform Kohanski and others that they were to be discharged until just before they were to be released on Wednesday . Both Reynolds and Production Manager Gelinas testi- fied that it was not until Wednesday afternoon that other employees involved were told of their lay-off. Bean's testimony makes clear the fact that when he spoke to Kohanski on Tuesday he 'did not know the employee was to go to the hospital the following day Bean offered no credible explanation for having selected Kohanski on Tuesday as the only one to be informed of the impending discharge. 1 7 Bean did not specifically deny any parts of either the second or third conversations with Kohanski that day, He testified. however, that he only talked with Kohanski once on Tuesday. The Trial Examiner cannot consider what is, in effect, a general denial, to be sufficient to negate Kohanski 's detailed testimony. 8 Bean denied referring to the Union on this occasion . For reasons set forth in the foot- note next but one above, the Trial Examiner does not accept the denial as credible. D. D. BEAN & SOTS S CO. 735 back pay, and Kohanski declared that he would refer the matter to the Board. Bean told him that he could see the President of the United States or the Mayor of Jaffrey.' Kohanski returned to work on September 30 and since then has been regularly employed. Albert Coll. Coll, formerly employed by the respondent as machinist and as foreman, was rehired by Vernon Bean during the latter part of October 1945, after his return from military service In accordance with the respondent's plans for expansion, previously described, a second shift of machinists was started, and Coll was placed in charge of them as foreman. In addition to caring for maintenance work and making spare parts, Coll completed one new assembly machine before his discharge in April 1946, and partly completed another At the hearing Vernon Bean characterized Coll as an excellent worker. When Coll reported for work at 4 o'clock on April 24, 1946, he was given his pay in full by Production Manager Gelinas. who told him he had been instructed to lay off the night shift. About an hour later Coll went to Vernon Bean for further information Bean explained that there was a shortage of material and added that because the Union was "trying to get in," he did not want too many employees.'0 Bean also reminded Coll that he had recently asked for a raise which the company could not afford and stated that he believed Coll would make more money at some other plant. Coll took no part in the effort to organize the respondent's employees, and there is no evidence that any member of management. befoi e the lay off, believed him to be active or interested in such organization. Coll testified that he did not see the Union circular until Thursday night, the day after his discharge, and that he had no real knowledge previous to that time of Union activity at the plant. James Schofield. Having previously been employed by the respondent as a printer, Schofield was rehired by Vernon Bean on April 15, 1946, to work as a machinist on the second shift. under his brother-in-law, Albert Coll. When interviewing him for re-employment, Bean asked Schofield if he ever belonged to a union. Schofield replied that he had belonged to a union in another town. On Tuesday. April 23, Gelinas came to the employee at his machine and asked him what he thought of unions Schofield replied that lie had belonged to one, and that he would join if the majority did at the plant. Schofield reported for work about 4.30 p in. on April 24. He was told by Coll that his check was awaiting him at the office. Gelinas informed' him that the ' Bean flatly denied that he had offered any money to Kohanski, at any time. According to his testimony, Kohanski himself raised the question the night he was called to the fac- tory, and the employee was then told there would be no back pay, that he was not being reinstated under a Board order, and that he could take the job offered or leave it. The Trial Examiner, having closely observed the witnesses while testifying on this matter, accepts as more credible the testimony of Kohanski and his wife, upon which. the above findings rest. Furthermore, Bean's insistence that Kohanski was in fact a "night shift" employee, in the face of the employee's actual work record and his own testimony that 2 weeks after hiring him he changed plans and transferred him to the machine shop under Reynolds, the day foreman cash disiiedit upon his entire testimony regarding this employee. '0 In substance, Bean's testimony corroborated that of Coll, except that he denied making any reference to the Union Since Vernon Bean had been present at his father's speech to all employees that same afternoon , it is reasonable to believe that he also referred to the Union in his talk with Coll 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lay-off was caused by lack of material . but asked him to "hang around a few weeks," as they would want him back Since that date, however , he has not been recalled to work. 2 Conclusions as to the four discharges It is the contention of counsel for the Board that all four employees named above were discharged on April 24 to discourage Union membership . The re- spondent contends that all were laid off due to a reduction in force necessitated 0 by lack of certain equipment. In support of the latter contention Vernon Bean testified , in substance, that on Friday, April 19, he instructed Foi eman Reynolds to select foi lay-off, the following Wednesday, a number of men working on or hired for the night shift, because the supply of new sprocket chain, used to-make new equipment , would be delayed for nearly 2 years " According to Bean, lie was in telephonic com- munication with a representative of the supply company on April 18 , and was told that the delivery date for chain would be 20 months. The respondent in- troduced into evidence a letter, dated April 22, from the supply house, which states : With reference to your telephonic inquiry of April 18 regarding Special #40 Chains and Sprockets for your proposed Match Stripper Machines, we wish to advise that we can schedule this material for delivery within 20 months after the receipt of i our order in this office. Bean testified that this letter was in confirmation of information he had already received over the telephone on April 18. The language of the letter is clear. It is in answer to a telephonic inquiry, and not in confirmation of an answer already given. Furthermore, it indicates that as late as April 22, the supply company had received no definite order for the material desired by the respond- ent. Under all the circumstances the Trial Examiner is not convinced that on April 18, Bean knew of the 20-month delivery date, or that on April 19, lie and Reynolds selected any employee for la.N-off These citcunistances include the ,probabilities inherent in the situation described by Bean and Reynolds. Ac- cepting at face value their testimony that, in order to avoid ill feeling. no -advance notice was to be given to the employees, it is reasonable to believe that if Bean had been in possession of the chain information on April 18, any resultant lay-off would have been made on the following (lay, the end of the workweek. In any event, the Trial Examiner believes-that the respondent did receive the letter from the supply house on April 23 or April 24, almost coincidentally with its first knowledge that efforts at self-organization were being made among its employees and that upon receipt of the letter Bean decided to discontinue the second shift and suspend plans for building new machinery. Since April 24, 1946, and until the time of the hearing. no second shift has operated, and no new employees have been hired for the machine shop. Although the circumstances are not without elements which raise some doubt; the evidence does not support a finding that discontinuance of the second shift It By implication in Bean's testimony and in the Findings of Fact proposed by its counsel, the respondent claims that inability to obtain punch presses also caused the lay-off Since Bean admitted that be knew, early in February. that delivery of punch presses would be delayed for a year or more, and that he nevertheless hired two additional employees for the machine shop thereafter, it is plain that the lack of punch presses was not a contribut- ing cause for the lay-offs in April. D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. -737 or the discharge of its foreman were discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. The release of the foreman of an abandoned shift was a reasonable event, particularly in view of Coll's admitted dissatisfaction , with, his salary. The record is barren of any evidence that Coll was either active in , or even aware- of, the efforts being made to organize the respondent 's employees Nor does the- evidence warrant an inference that the respondent, before the Union meeting of April 25, suspected him of being sympathetic toward such efforts. Of the six employees hired in and since the fall of 1945 and working regularly under Coll on April 24, 1946, two were dischai ged that day-Schofield and Craw- ford. Two of the remaining four, Sirois and Koski , were veteran trainees; an- other was retained because of his qualifications as a millwright ; and the fourth, Maurice Reynolds, became assistant to his brother on the first shift. Both of the last two mentioned had greater seniority than Crawford and Schofield Craw- ford was included among the navies of employees in the original charge filed by the Union He was re-employed in May 1946, and assigned to the respondent's drafting room under the Government training program for servicemen. On Octo- ber 28, 1946, the Board's Regional Director notified the respondent that the Union's charge had been amended to exclude the name of Crawford. As to Schofield, while the case is not without doubt, since it has been found' that on the day before his discharge, in reply to an inquiry from Gelinas, he had replied that he would join a union if the majority did, the evidence does not reasonably support a finding that he was selected for discharge to discourage mem- bership in the Union or for any suspected activity on his part in behalf of the Union. The facts lead to other conclusions, however, in the case, of Hintz and Kohanski. Both had been hired before Coll, and before the second shift was, established. Neither of them was a regular eniplovee on the second shift-Kohanski had, never worked on it. The testimony of Foreman Reynolds establishes the fact that the jobs performed by both of these employees did not cease upon the deci- sion to postpone the new machinery project: on the contrary their work was assigned to other employees after April 24 " The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the respondent seized upon the opportunity, provided by its decision to postpone building machines and to dis- continue the night shift, as a pretext for ridding itself of Hintz, leader of the Union movement in the plant, and of Kohanski, known by Vernon Bean to have been active in a union of employees it ,niothei plant in town and believed to be assisting the oiganization of employees at the respondents plant. In view of the small size of the plant, and of Gelinas' prompt and admitted reporting of Union activities to management, it is reasonable to infer, and the Trial Examiner finds, that the respondent had knowledge of. or at least suspected, Hintz' leader- ship in organizing. In summary, it is concluded and found: (1) that employees Hintz and Kolianski were disciiniinatorily discharged on April 24 and May 2, respectively. in order to discourage membership in the Union; (2) that by such discrimination and by other conduct, including (a) D D. Bean's speech to all employees at it forced "Reynolds testified that he and his brother did Kohauski 's work, and that employee- Corpi peiforined the duties of Hintz. - -8. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL= LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assembly during working hours on April 24," (b) the questioning of employees Kohanski and Schofield upon their hiring as to their union affiliations, (c) the anti-Union remarks made by Vernon Bean to Kohanski both before and after his discharge, and (d) by the efforts of Vernon Bean in September 1946, to per- suade Kohanski to withdraw his claim for reinstatement filed under -the Act ; and-by the totality of such conduct the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; and (3) that the discharges of Coll and Schofield were not discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. D The discharge of Victoria B. MoGrintus 1. Events bearing upon the discharge Victoria McGinnis began work for the respondent in 1941 or 1942. She was a regular operator of an assembly machine. She was a capable employee. There is no evidence that she had ever been disciplined, charged with misconduct, until April 6, 1946, the day after the Union meeting. McGinnis took no part in the organizing campaign. On the contrary, she re- fused to assist Hintz obtain a list of her fellow employees. On Thursday night, April 25, however, she and three other female employees talked with the Union representative outside the meeting hall. She worked the following day. Dur- ing the afternoon she stepped into the men's room, a few feet away from her machine. Assistant Production Manager George Chamberlain, who served as her foreman, called to her and told her that she must not smoke in there. She left the men's room and went to the ladies' room, at the opposite end of the as- sembly line. Before-the beginning of her shift on Monday, the next working day, Chamberlain came to her home and told her that she had been discharged for smoking in the men's room. She was recalled on or about September 26, 1946, and since then has been regularly employed by the respondent. McGinnis attended the 1946 Christmas party of the respondent's employees. During a conversation with D. D. Bean, Jr, previously identified as treasurer of the company, she protested that she did not understand why she had been fired, and insisted that she had had nothing to do with the Union. Bean told her that he believed her, but that "they" had been given to understand, through Gelinas and a girl employee, that she had been involved in the organization. Bean urged her not to feel badly about it, since she was back at work 14 13 See Clark Bros. Co., Inc., 70 N. L. R. B. 802 , where the Board said : Such freedom [ to receive aid and advice ] is meaningless, however, unless the em- ployees are also free to determine whether or not to receive such aid, advice and in- formation To force employees to receive such aid, advice, and information impairs that freedom ; it is calculated to, and does , interfere with the selection of a repre- sentative of the employees ' choice. And this is so , wholly apart from the fact that the speech itself may be privileged under the Constitution. Furthermore, Bean's speech was not the sole act of the, respondent with respect to the Union's organizing efforts, it was an- inseparable part of a pattern of conduct. 14 Bean corroborated most of McGinnis ' testimony concerning this conversation, but denied that he had told her that Gelinas had reported that she was involved in the Union activities . Gelinas, although a witness , did not testify on this point Bean admitted, in effect, that he did not consider smoking in the men 's room was "serious." Under the cir- cumstances , the Trial Examiner considers the testimony of McGinnis , as to the disputed statement, as the more credible As noted heretofore , it was Gelinas who reported to his superiors that an organization meeting was to be held and induced D. D. Bean to call the plant meeting. D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 2. Conclusions as to the discharge 739 The testimony of both Gelinas and McGinnis is in general agreement that the employee had been warned about smoking in the men's room before the discharge. Likewise, the testimony of Chamberlain and McGinnis is in general agreement that on Friday, April 26, Chamberlain ordered her out of the'men's room,-where- upon she went to the ladies' room and smoked. Later the same afternoon, after the change of the shift, Chamberlain reported the incident to Gelinas and Gelinas ordered her discharge. It is plain that McGinnis violated instructions. Since the respondent urges such N iolation as the cause of her discharge, the question to be resolved is whether the discharge was, in fact, a disciplinary measure or whether the incident was used by Gelinas merely as a pretext while the real reason stemmed from his belief that she was involved in Union activity, and was-rooted in his desire to dis- courage organization, as contended, by counsel for the Board. Chamberlain had authority to discharge her, but did not do so. He did not recommend her discharge. It appears from his testimony that his report to Gelinas was no more than casual. The testimony of at least two management witnesses for the respondent-D. D. Bean, Jr., and Foreman Reynolds-estab- lishes firmly the fact that the dereliction was minor. (D. D. Bean, Jr., testified: "I wouldn't think it was serious. , ." Reynolds testified frankly that it is common practice for girls to go into the men's room, and that he had seen several girls in there frequently, even up to a time just before the hearing.) Gelinas .admitted that McGinnis is the only girl ever discharged for the offense. The Trial Examiner is aware that supervisors may not impartially impose dis- cipline. , Thus the fact that Chamberlain observed the infraction but took no action does not determine that Gelinas' decision was therefore discriminatory. It does, however, focus inquiry upon Gelinas' actual motive in discharging one of several girls who consistently and over a long period were violating his instruc- tions. And it casts serious doubt upon the contention that-the penalty arose only from infraction of a rule Gelinas testified that it was lie who had brought news of the organizational efforts to his superiors the day before the meeting, and that D. D. Bean had made the speech upon his insistence. It has been found that Gelinas discrimi- natorily discharged Hintz on the same day It has also been found that D. D. Bean, Jr, told McGinnis many months later that Gelinas had reported her as being involved in the organization . These facts form a clear pattern of anti- Union conduct on the part of Gelinas. The Trial Examiner is convinced that Gelinas was actually motivated to discharge McGinnis by his antipathy toward the Union, and used the incident reported to him by Chamberlain as a mere pretext?' It is therefore concluded and found that McGinnis was discharged by the respondent on April 26, 1946, to discourage Union membership and activity among its employees, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees ..in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act's "The weakness of the respondent's contention is further revealed by the testimony of Vernon Bean , who stated , in effect, that McGinnis would have been laid off for no more than a month if her case had not been filed as a charge by the Union. 18 In its answer, the respondent alleges that it was informed that she did not desire reinstatement , by implication urging this as a reason for not re -employing her until Septem- ber. The Trial Examiner finds no merit in this claim ; there is no evidence that either the Board or the Union informed the respondent that the charge relating to McGinnis had been withdrawn , furthermore, as noted above, Bean stated that she was not reinstated sooner because her case had been included in the Union's charge. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 certain, ,unfair labor, prac- tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action Which the Trial Examiner finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the respondent has discriminated against Phillip Hintz, A. James Kohanski, and Victoria McGinnis. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent offer to Phillip Hintz (Kohanski and McGinnis having already been reinstated) immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially (equivalent position" without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and that it make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered, by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equivalent to that which he or site would normally have earned ,as wages from the date of his or her discharge to the (late of offer of reinstate- ment, in the case of Hintz, and to the (late of their reinstatement, in the cases of Kohanski and McGinnis, less their net earnings i8 during said periods In view -of the untaii labor practices found to have been committed by the respondent, constituting violations of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, the Trial Examiner is of the opinion and finds that there is danger of'the commis- sion of other additional unfair labor practices, since the violations thus far engaged in by the respondent indicate an intent to inteifeie generally with the rights of the employees as guaranteed by the Act. It will therefore be recom- mended that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering ,with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their right to self-organization" Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within 'the Ineaning of Section 2 (5) of the act. 2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Phillip Hintz, A. James Kohanski, and Victoria McGinnis, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor, practices within the meaning of Section S (3) of the Act. 3. 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 "In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression "former of substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wherever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent position ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puei to Rico, Bianch, 65 N L R B 827. Matter of Ci ossett Lumber Co . 8 N L R B 440 , 497-498 3s See May Department Stores, 326 U S 376 D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 741 and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within-the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5 By discharging Albert Coll and James Schofield the respondent has not engaged in untaii labor pi actices within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Trial Examiner recommends that D: D. Bean & Sons Co., its-officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees by in any manner discriminat- ing in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist the United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following athimative action which the Trial Examiner finds will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Phillip Hintz immediate and full reinstatement to the position which he occupied on April 24, 1946, prior to the respondent's discrimination against him, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges ; and make Phillip Hintz, A. James Kohanski and Victoria McGinnis whole for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner provided herein in the section entitled "The remedy'"; (b) Post immediately at its plant in East Jaffrey, New Hampshire, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A " Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, detaced, of covered by any other material ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachu- setts) 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 I It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the 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 as to Albert Coll and James Schofield. 809095-49-vol 79 48 ,742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National ,Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.3S of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, 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 lie relies upon, and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof,upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of'service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.6:5. As further provided in said Sec- tion 203 39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, iequest therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. C W WHITTEMORE, Trial Examiner. Dated May 27; 1947. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL E MPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations 'Board, and in order to'effectuate the policies of the National Labor -Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : 1 WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full rein- statement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Phillip Hintz WE WILL MAKE WHOLE the employees named below for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. A. James Kohanski Victoria McGinnis WE WILL MAKE WHOLE such employees for any loss or diminution in their seniority or other rights or privileges which they may have suffered as a .result of the discrimination against them. D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 743 All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. D D. BEAN & SONS COMPANY Employer. By --------------------------------- Dated--------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must,remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, 'or covered by any other material.