Vermont American Furniture Corp.

In the Matter Of VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION and UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 1-CA-154.Decided March 28, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER On November 30, 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 in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Re- spondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the posi- tions of the parties. The Board I has reviewed the rulings of 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, and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent with this Decision and Order. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating its employees about their union affiliations, engaging in the surveillance of a union meeting, threatening employees that they would lose their jobs unless they gave up the Union, and threatening to close the plant if the Union came in. In connection with the finding that the Respondent threatened to close the plant the Trial Examiner relied, in part, upon the failure of the ' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board lug, 11el •^.i ed i e plowwer° in '•on'lee iIn with this proceeding to a three-man panel consigtinq of the undersigned Board Members. [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 43. 408 VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 409 Respondent to disavow an article appearing in two local newspapers which stated that officers of the company had advised that the plant would be closed "in case a union was forced upon them." We do not believe that the failure of the Respondent to disavow this newspaper account is probative of whether the Respondent made the threat and, accordingly, we do not rely upon the failure to disavow. We believe, however, that there is substantial evidence elsewhere in the record to support the finding that Respondent's officials did, in fact, threaten to close the plant if employees were represented by a union. 2. The Trial Examiner found that on the morning of the election Foreman Hall promised employee Desilets that "if the company won" it would furnish drinks to the employees. The Trial Examiner found the incident trivial and insufficient to support a specific finding of re- straint and coercion relying, in part, on the fact that there was no evidence that this promise had been communicated by Desilets to any of the other employees. Although we do not necessarily agree with the Trial Examiner's reasoning in this respect, we note that no excep- tion has been taken to the finding and we therefore adopt it without further comment. 3. For the reasons appearing in the Intermediate Report 2 we agree with the Trial Examiner that employees Belnap, Desilets, Nadeau, and Dukett were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.3 With respect to Nadeau, the Respondent contends that she was dis- charged for having made a derogatory remark to Kahn. This con- Lention is without merit. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that Na- deau was actually discharged at the time she was handed her final pay check by Kahn and that this occurred before her utterance of the re- marks to Kahn. While we do not find it necessary to adopt the Trial Examiner's analysis of the social and psychological factors which might have motivated Nadeau in her remark to Kahn, we agree with the Trial Examiner in finding that, under all the circumstances, her conduct following the receipt of her final pay check was not the cause of her discharge and, moreover, does not warrant denying her rein- statement and back pay.' 2 In his discussion of the facts concerning Belnap the Trial Examiner stated Foreman Hall urged Belnap to stay on the job, saying he was "a good man." The record shows that, in fact, it was Superintendent Knuckles and not Hall who made the statement. 8 The Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner, in finding violations of Section 8 (a) (3), credited only the witnesses for the General Counsel is without support in the Intermediate Report and the record . Furthermore, the importance of observation of wit- nesses to any finding of their credibility is such that we will not overrule the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner unless they are clearly erroneous. Matter of Minnesota Mining f Manufacturing Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 557. It Cf. Matter of J. A. Booker d/b/a Atlantic Stages, 78 N. L. R. B. 553. 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, Vermont Amer- ican Furniture Corporation, Orleans, Vermont, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., or in 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 and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment ; (b) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings; (c) Threatening to close the plant if the employees seek union representation ; (d) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or those of their coworkers or 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 Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Forest Belnap, Marie A. Nadeau, and Harry A. Dukett immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions 5 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Forest Belnap, Marie A. Nadeau, Harry A. Dukett, and Edmond J. Desilets for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he or she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date 5In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression "former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wher- ever possible and 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, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. It. B. 827. VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 411 of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings a during that period; (c) Post at its plant in Orleans, Vermont 7 copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, after being signed by representatives of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding 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, defaced, or covered with 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decison and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner con- cerning their union activities, views, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will suspend opera- tions or take any other economic reprisal if UPHOLSTERERS' IN- TERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, succeeds in unionizing our plant. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees in their self-organizational activities on behalf of UPHOLSTERERS' INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L., or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organ- 6 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where, which would not have been incurred but for this unlawful discrimination and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered earnings . Republio Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S 7. + In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted in the notice, before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words : "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UPHOLSTER- ERWINTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sensatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ- ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected upon agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. WE WILL offer to Forest Belnap, Marie A. Nadeau, and Harry A. Dukett immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any senior- ity or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimi- nation against them. WE WILL make whole Edmond J. Desilets for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of the discrimination against him. ALL our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employement or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION, . Employer. Dated-------------------- By---------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date thereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Thomas H. Ramsey, for the General Counsel. Mr. Richard J. Walsh (Stackpole, Stetson and Bradlee), of Boston, Mass., for the Respondent. Mr. Ivan Inglis, of Barton, Vt., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge filed on September 7, 1948, by Upholsterers' Interna- tional Union of North America, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 413 Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued a complaint dated September 10, 1948, against Vermont American Furniture Corporation, Orleans, Vermont, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the amended charge, and a notice of hearing were served upon the Respondent and the Union on September 10, 1948. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges in substance that the Respondent: (1) on February 28, 1948, discharged Forest Belnap, and on March 5, 1948, discharged Edmond J. De- silets, Marie A. Nadeau, and Harry A. Dukett and since such dates has refused their reinstatement, because of their activities on behalf of the Union; (2) at various times after February 1, 1948, by its officers and agents: (a) questioned employees as to their Union activity, (b) threatened employees with discharge, or closing of the plant, unless they withdrew from the Union, (c) maintained surveillance over a Union meeting, and (d) promised employees a party if the Union lost an election; and (3) by these acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In its answer, filed on September 30, 1948, the Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices, and set forth certain affirmative allegations as to the discharges discussed fully below. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Newport, Vermont, on October 6 and 7, 1948, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union 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. During the hearing the Trial Examiner granted motions to amend both the complaint and the answer as to substantive matters, and at the close of the hearing granted a joint motion to conform the pleadings to the proof in minor matters, such as spelling, dates, etc. The parties waived oral argument. Since the hearing, briefs have been received from the Respondent and from the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACE 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT i The Respondent is a New York corporation, with its principal office in New York, New York, and its manufacturing plant in Orleans, Vermont, where it is engaged in the manufacture of furniture. Its principle raw materials -consist of lumber and paint, valued at more than $50,000 annually, about 50 per cent of cl}cli materials originating outside the State of Vermont. Its finished products 1 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein referred to as the General Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have an annual value of more than $100,000, about 80 per cent being shipped to points outside the State of Vermont. The Respondent employs about 72 production employees. It concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., is a labor organi- zation admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and major issues 2 The Respondent operates a plant employing about 70 production workers, both male and female, in a small town of about 1,300 population. Its major management officials at Orleans include Robert Kahn, treasurer of the corpo- ration and generally in charge of the factory ; Sol Roehner, manager ; and Leonard Knuckles, superintendent. Organizational efforts among the employees began in January and February. Union organizer Ivan Inglis called at the homes of a number of employees, a meeting of about 10 workers was held on February 11, and several signed application cards were turned over to Inglis. At the February 11 meeting the employees selected Edmond Desilets, a machinist, as "captain" of the organizing group. Desilets thereafter passed out Union application cards at the shop, col- lected and returned them to the organizer. By the latter part of February management became aware of the origaniza- tional activity. Kahn and Roehner discussed the matter, agreed in their desire that the Union be "rejected," according to Kahn's testimony, and decided to "talk to the employees." Roehner thereupon called the workers together in three separate groups. referred to a "rumor" that "people" were "seeing our employees at night agitating them towards forming some kind of a union," and told them, in effect, that a union would not benefit them! A second organizational meeting was held the night of March 4, in the "parlor" of a hotel in Barton, a neighboring town. About 10 employees attended. As they passed through the hotel lobby, a number of the employees were observed by Kahn and Knuckles, who were in the cock-tail lounge, another room adjoining the lobby. At about the same time Roehner, who shares Kahn's office at the plant, dropped in, "paid" his "respects" to "Messrs. Kahn" and "Knuckles," had a drink and excused himself.' The incident is in issue as alleged "surveillance." The next morning three of the employees attending the Union meeting- Desilets, Nadeau and Dukett-were discharged by Kahn. These discharges, and that of Belnap on February 28, are the major events in issue. On June 11 the Board conducted an election among the Respondent's employees, who rejected the Union, 55 to 11. On June 23 the Board dismissed the petition from which the election stemmed! 2 Unless otherwise stated , all events described occurred in 1948 . The record contains little or no dispute as to the facts narrated in this Section. 8 The quotations are from Roehner 's testimony. A more comprehensive description of his speeches, including certain disputed remarks, appears in a following section. 4 These quotations are also from Roehner 's testimony. 5 Case No. 1-RC-250. Before the election the Union filed a waiver of the unfair labor practices charged in the instant proceedings. VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 415 B. Interference, restraint and coercion 1. Events, Evidence and Conclusions bearing upon General Counsel's contentions Local management officials admitted, as witnesses, that they became aware of and were concerned with the employees' efforts to organize, in February. Kahn so informed, by telephone, his superiors in the New York office. Although Kahn, so he testified, was confident that the Union would be "rejected," an event which he desired, he and Roehner decided to advise the employees of the company's position. Accordingly, on February 28 and March 1, employees were assembled in three. different departmental groups by Kahn and Roehner. The latter spoke to the assemblies for 5 or 10 minutes. Roehner admitted having told the employees in each of his speeches that he knew of the "rumor" that a union was being organized, and having assured them of his belief that such organization would not benefit them. There is sharp dispute in the testimony, however, as to whether or not on the same occasions he warned employees that the plant would be closed if the Union came in. Two of the discharged employees, Desilets and Nadeau, testified that Roehner made this threat. Roehner and Kahn denied that the statement was uttered. In support of its position the Respondent called as witnesses two non- supervisory employees still at the plant, Richard Power and Ernest Burgess. Their denials are unconvincing. Power at first said that Roehner made no mention of a union, then said that Roehner declared the employees did not need .a union, and finally admitted that he had been unable to hear what Roehner said during the first part of his speech, and had to move up "practically . . . under his elbow." Although declaring that he was present throughout Roehner's talk, Burgess insisted that nothing whatever was said about the union, a claim which is in direct conflict with the admissions of both Kahn and Roehner. In resolving the dispute, the Trial Examiner relies not only upon his observation of the respective witnesses while on the stand and while in the hearing room, but also upon the uncontroverted fact that, in early March, neither Kahn nor Roehner took any steps to disavow to the employees, or to seek retraction from the publishers, the following statement appearing in the news columns (not editorial columns) of two newspapers circulated locally, which they admittedly saw at the time : It was reported this morning that the board of directors and the president of the [Respondent] corporation have advised that the operation of the Orleans plant would be unprofitable under a union set-up and would, there- fore, be forced to close the local industry in case a union was forced upon them. The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that in his speeches to all employees at the plant Roehner threatened closure of the plant in order to discourage their self-organization. The threat was plainly coercive and interfered with rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act ° " General Counsel contends also that failure to disavow the newspaper article quoted above constituted a violation of the Act. In support of this contention , in his brief, he cites Fred P. Weissman Co, 69 N. L. R. B. 1002. In support of his counterclaim that such failure to repudiate constituted no violation of the Act, counsel for the Respondent in his brief cites Mylan Manufacturing Company, 70 N. L. R. B. 574 . The Trial Examiner perceives no point in resolving this conflict in claims and citations. In this case it is established that management made the threat directly , openly and orally, to all employees, at meetings called for that very purpose. 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It has been noted that a few nights after Roehner's coercive speeches the three top management officials-Kahn, Roehner and Knuckles-all appeared at a hotel in another town some 9 miles from Orleans, at a time when employees were gathering there for a Union meeting. From the coincidence arises the question of surveillance. It is plain that, in the absence of intent to spy upon employees, the Act does not prohibit employers from frequenting cocktail lounges. There is no dispute that shortly after the plant opened the next morning three of the employees attending the meeting were summarily handed their "final" pay checks. The failure of the Respondent, well informed of the issue, to establish a credible purpose for its officials' presence at the hotel leaves the Trial Examiner with only the open road of reasonable inference to follow. Kahn testified that he and Knuckles went together to the hotel and there met Dukett, manager of another furniture company, by "prearrangement." The "prearrangement" is not further explained. Shortly thereafter Roehner came in, leaving his wife outside in his car. According to his testimony he only came in to "pay his respects" to Kahn, (with whom he shared the same office each day), Knuckles and Dukett,-and to have a drink. He offered no explanation as to how he knew Kahn, Knuckles and Dukett were there to receive his respects. It was, however, an unusual occasion. According to his own testimony, it was "common" for him and his wife to go to the hotel, since "it is about the closest and most desirable place to take your wife or to have a sociable drink for a man in my position." "They have a nice place there," and he further said, "I know the people, the Abernethy's, and I have been there several times." On this occasion, however, he left his wife outside in the car, and there is no evidence that he had dinner or visited the Abernethy's. Thus the testimony of management officials themselves removes from the coincidence any element of chance, and leaves only the factor of "prearrange- ment," unexplained except by other testimony of Roehner in connection with his anti-Union speeches. As to the matter, Roehner testified : You see, anybody circulating among our people at night, I should think, is something for us to be concerned about. You see just what they want. Labor is a very important part of our business life. In view of management's admission that it knew of previous visits of Union organizers to employee homes, at night, and the intimate character of the relationship between Kahn and his employees, described by himself, the Trial Examiner can place no reliance upon the denials of the three officials that they knew, in advance, of the Union meeting. The inference is reasonable, and the Trial Examiner concludes and finds : (1) that management knew of the proposed Union meeting, (2) that Kahn, Knuckles and Roehner went to the Barton Hotel on March 4 for the purpose of observing employees who attended; and (3) that such surveillence constituted restraint and coercion within the meaning of the Act, Another incident, alleged by the complaint as unlawful interference, occurred on June 11. A few hours before the Board election that day Foreman Everett Hall told Desilets (who by them had been reinstated, as described in a following section) that "if the company won" it would furnish drinks for the employees.' Beer was, in fact, provided for the employees after the election, at a time when a Board representative was present. There is no evidence that the Board represent- ative made any protest then or later about the serving of beer or that the Union ever cited the incident in objecting to the conduct of the election. Nor is there T Hall denied making the statement. The finding rests upon Desilet's more credible testimony. VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 417 evidence that Hall's remark, even if it were to be narrowly construed as a "promise of benefit," was repeated by him or any other supervisor to any other employee. Under the circumstances, the Trial Examiner considers the incident as trivial and insufficient support for a specific finding of restraint and coercion.' C. The discriminatory discharges 1. Forest Belnap a. Events and evidence bearing upon General Counsel's contention Belnap was hired by the Respondent in mid-November, 1947, as an "all around man," to work in various departments as needed. He received an increase in pay in January, a few weeks before his discharge. Belnap attended the first Union meeting on February 11 and thereafter dis- tributed a few application cards among employees at the plant. During the morning of February 28 Superintendent Knuckles called the employee to his office, and asked him if he was going to be a Union or a "company" man. Belnap said he wanted time to think it over. Foreman Hall entered the office and remarked that "they were going to close the doors if they had a union shop there." Upon leaving the office, Knuckles and Belnap proceeded toward the time clock. Knuckles asked if Belnap wanted his time. The employee replied that if the Superintendent was planning to give it to him, he might as well take it then as later. Knuckles thereupon punched Beluap's card and sent him to the office to get his pay. Early the following week Belnap returned to the plant and asked Kahn for his job. When Kahn asked him if he was going to be a union man or a company man, Belnap again replied that he had not made up his mind. He was reinstated.' b. Events and evidence bearing upon the Respondent's contentions In substance, management officials claimed that because sales were declining it was decided early in February to effect a gradual reduction in force, and that for certain reasons applicable to the respective individuals, Belnap, Desilets Nadeau and Dukett, among others, were selected specifically for lay-off. In support of his claim of diminished sales, Kahn quoted total orders received each month, during 1947 and the first half of 1948, for suites of furniture.70 The 'figures quoted are as follows: 1947 1948 January -------------------------------------------- 213 202 February ---------------------------------------- 238 217 March---------------------------------------------- 229 209 April----------------------------------------------- 272 39 $ Nor is there evidence to support the General Counsel 's claim in his brief, but not alleged In the complaint, that employees were promised time off with pay after the election, "con- ditioned upon their rejecting the Union at the election." 9 The findings above rest mainly upon Belnap 's credible testimony. Although Knuckles testified at length concerning this employee , he did not deny either the incident in his office or that at the time clock . Nor did Kahn deny occurrence of the Incident In his office. The Trial Examiner does not consider Hall's denial that he had ever heard Knuckles or Kahn question Belnap as to his Union affiliation as being substantial refuta- tion of Belnap's direct testimony. Hall also denied stating that the plant would be closed if the union came In . The denial is not accepted as true. His superior, Roehner, voiced similar warning to all employees that same day and the following Monday. m It appears from his testimony that Kahn referred to three-piece bedroom suites, which he said were "standard." 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1947 1948 May----------------------------------------------- 177 34 June------------------------------------------------ 178 66 July------------------------------------------------ 262 August --------------------------------------------- 333 September------------------------------------------ 436 October--------------------------------------------- 335 November ------------------------------------------ 242 December------------------------------------------- 445 Analysis of these figures reveals an appreciable drop in orders in April, 1948, and thereafter , as compared with the same months of 1947. Sincb the only discharges involved in this proceeding occurred in the last week of February and the first week of March, 1948, it is obvious that the number of orders received in March, 1948, and thereafter, could have had no bearing upon discharges already made. Also, if Kahn is to be believed, the February, 1948, total is irrelevant, since he testified that during the first week of that month management decided on lay-offs, including the four employees here involved. Reference to the above-quoted figures shows that the January, 1948, total is not appreciably lower than that of the same month in 1947, and that during Decem- ber more orders were received than at any time during the preceding eleven months. Finally Kahn testified that by the end of February 1948, they were still "six or five weeks behind ," in filling orders already received . During the "first two months of '48," he said, ". . . we were shipping on, a back log" of orders;. Kahn's claim that a reduction in force was necessary early in February lacks the support of his own testimony. The Trial Examiner concludes that a decline in business requiring the lay-off of Belnap, Desilets, Nadeau and Dukett was not, as the Respondent contends, the basic reason for their discharge. Specifically, as to Belnap, Kahn said he was chosen for lay-off for the following reasons: (1) he was "unessential"; (2) he had made threats to Knuckles that he would "lift" Foreman Hall's face if required to operate a "glue reel"; (3) -disobedience of orders in regard to his machine set-ups, reported by Knuckles and Hall; and (4) he was "more or less a pest" in criticizing to Knuckles the way his machine was set up. As to (1) the record lacks credible evidence that Belnap was "unessential" in the general sense of the term. On the contrary, it is uncontradicted that Belnap received an increase in pay not long before his discharge, and that in December, when he started to quit his job, Foreman Hall urged him to stay, stating that he was a "good man." As to (2) Belnap denied making any such threat to Knuckles about Hall. According to Knuckles, Belnap once remarked to him that Hall was "pushing him around," and that when Hall came in the next morning he might not know him. Even if Knuckles is believed on this point, the incident was plainly trivial. According to his own testimony, Knuckles did no more than tell Belnap that he had "better be careful ; that Mr. Hall might retaliate , or something to that effect." Had the remark been considered by Knuckles as seriously insubordinate, he would have taken action at once. As to (3), Knuckles denied ever giving Belnap any instructions regarding set-ups ; it follows there could have been no disobedience of instructions issued by him. Nor did Hall, Belnap's foreman, cite a single instance of disobedience by the employee of his orders or instructions. On the contrary, Hall testified that he never had any "difficulty" with Belnap. As to ( 4), Knuckles testified that on "two or three" occasions Belnap com- plained to him that his machine was not set up properly . Knuckles further VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 419 testified, however, that on each of these occasions all he did was to try the machine himself, and then tell Belnap to "go ahead and shape and he would do his work all right." Knuckles made no claim that Belnap was thus a "pest," as characterized by Kahn. It would appear that Belnap's fault, if any, was to the Respondent's advantage, in making certain that his machine turned out proper work. The testimony of both Knuckles and Hall fails to support Kahn's claims as to his reasons for "laying off" Belnap The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that there is no merit in the Respondent's contentions as to this employee. c. Conclusions as to Belnap The Trial Examiner is convinced by the preponderance of credible evidence, and finds, that the Respondent's real reason for discharging Belnap was to dis- courage Union activity. It is further found that by the discriminatory discharge, and by the above-quoted questioning of Belnap by Knuckles and Kahn as to his Union adherence, and the remark by Hall as to the closing of the plant, the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 2. Edmond J. Desilets, Marie A. Nadeau, and Harry A. Dukett a. Events and evidence bearing upon General Counsel's contention The discharges of these three employees occurred the same day, under similar circumstances, and are therefore grouped, although the Respondent advances different reasons for its action as to each. Desilets, a machinist, was the elected leader of the organizing group of em- ployees. Before his discharge on March 5, 15 or 20 signed applications had been collected by him at the plant. On February 28 he was called to the super- intendent's office, where Knuckles said he knew of his Union leadership and warned that he must drop such activities or be let go. Desilets asked to consider the matter until after dinner, admitting that he had signed a card as had other employees. Later the same day he told Knuckles that he would withdraw from the Union in order to hold his job. Knuckles then told him he might remain.' Although it does not appear that Marie Nadeau was particularly active in the organizing efforts, her sympathy with the movement was brought sharply to management's attention on February 28, at one of the meetings called by Roehner to discourage union activity. When Roehner cited benefits already enjoyed by the employees, and forcast a bigger bonus, Nadeau pointed out that a similar promise the preceding Christmas had not been kept, and voiced her belief that if the Union came in wages would be increased. According to Roehner's own testimony, "She spoke up and complained about not getting a raise. She was very energetic in her statement. . . . She persisted and made an issue of it. I wasn't exactly embarrassed, but I wasn't there to discuss wages with her. I had other problems on my mind." Dukett signed a union authorization card on February 23. On Tuesday, March 2, Knuckles called him to the office and asked if lie had signed a card. When "The finding as to the above interviews rest upon Desilets' credible testimony. Knuckles denied giving the employee the choice between his job and Union activity, but admitted the occasion of calling him to the office and warning him that he might be laid off because of lack of work. According to Knuckles, Desilets then declared that although he might be discharged, the Union was there to stay. He replied then, according to his testimony, that the Union had nothing to do with the lay-off. The Trial Examiner does not accept, as credible, Knuckles' version of the incident. 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employee replied that he had done so, the Superintendent told him he must withdraw it or give up his job. Dukett conceded that if his job was in jeopardy, he would give up the Union.i2 Desilets, Nadeau and Dukett attended the union meeting at the Hotel Barton in the evening of March 4. Kahn admitted having seen Desilets and Nadeau enter, but said he did not recall Dukett. Dukett's testimony is undenied, how- ever, that when he went in he bowed to the company officials and they bowed in return. It is found that management knew of their attendance at the March 4 union meeting. Early the following morning Knuckles went with these three employees to Kahn's office, in a group. Kahn handed each of them their pay checks, marked "Final." Handing the first checks to Desilets, he remarked that the employee had not "kept his word.113 The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Kahn had reference to his having attended the union meeting the night before after promising Knuckles to withdraw from such activities. When Dukett received his checks he asked why, and if it was because he went to the union meeting. Kahn told him "no," but that he had orders from his supervisors." Upon receiving her pay checks Nadeau who, according to extensive testimony of man- agement officials, had long been known by them to be nervous, excitable and unwell, protested vigorously against her discharge and declared it was because of her attendance at the union meeting. Knuckles commented that she had no business being there.'1 Apparently a heated argument followed, and as she left the office, according to her own testimony, she bitterly denounced Kahn, called him a Jew and declared that the war should have lasted longer. Since she had already received her final pay checks, however, the Trial Examiner finds that she had actually been discharged before making this remark. On March 8 the Union filed charges with the Board as to the discharges, among others, of the four employees here involved. Kahn admitted having received notice of the charge soon after its filing. On April 5 Roehner wrote to Desilets, asking him to return to work. Desilets came back on April 8, and was continuously employed by the Respondent from that date until just before the hearing, when he quit voluntarily. Dukett, Nadeau, and Belnap, however, have not been offered reinstatement. b. Events and evidence bearing upon the Respondent's contentions The Respondent's general contention that an extensive lay-off, including these four employees, was necessary and decided upon early in February, has been 12 The findings are based mainly upon Dukett's credible testimony. Knuckles denied facing Dukett with a choice between his job and his union activity, but admitted having discussed with the employee his lay-off and the Union in his office. Knuckles said that on this occasion he merely told Dukett that "the Union had nothing to do with" the lay-off. Knuckles version is found unreliable. 13 The finding rests upon the credible testimony of Desilets and Nadeau. The Trial Examiner can place no reliance upon Kahn's denial that he made this statement As noted in previous footnotes and elsewhere, Kahn's testimony is inconsistent in many respects not only with company records quoted by himself but also with the testimony of his sub- ordinates Knuckles and Hall. 1' Dukett quoted Kahn as saying orders had come from "the boss in Boston " Kahn's "boss" was in New York, not in Boston, and the Trial Examiner believes that in Dukett's recollection the association in sound between "boss" and "Boston" became a confirmed but erroneous item in his memory. Kahn himself claimed that it was after communica- tion with his superiors in New York that he decided upon the lay-offs 15 Knuckles did not specifically deny making this statement, quoted from Nadeau's tes- timony He merely denied saying anything to any of the three while in Kahn's office. The Trial Examinee considers Nadeau's testimony as the more credible. . a VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 421 found above to be without merit. Further discredit upon the general claim is cast by Kahn's conflicting testimony as to when he decided upon these specific discharges. At one point he declared they were chosen for lay-off early in February. At another he said choice was not made until during the week ending March 5. And that more special circumstances than ordinary lay-offs governed these discharges is revealed by the fact that one was dismissed on a Saturday, and three at the beginning of the work day on Friday, although Kahn declared that it was a company "habit" to lay off employees on Friday, the regular pay day, which clearly meant the end of the day. Kahn's secretary, Theresa Lambert, testified that she was making up the weekly pay roll at the time the three em- ployees were being discharged, and that this task usually took a full day. Specific reasons advanced for the "lay-off" of each of the three employees are now considered. Desilets. Kahn claimed at one point in his testimony that on February 7 he decided to let Desilets go, because his work was "unessential." No credible evidence was offered to support this claim. On the contrary, when asked by counsel for the Respondent why Desilets was recalled shortly after his discharge, Roehner replied : ... it is very difficult to obtain a good hand in this area, and particularly with reference to a machinist. We looked high and low before we obtained the services of Mr. Desilets . . . we made a lot of concessions in order to employ him. Desilets was the only machinist working for the company. Up to the time of his discharge he was employed 54 hours a week. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that there is no merit in the contention that Desilets was laid off because he was "unessential." Dnkett. Kahn contended that the main reason Dukett was dismissed was because of his absenteeism during the winter months. At the hearing Dukett reasonably explained that these absences were caused by heavy snows and by the fact that he lived on a back road a long distance from the plant. Although counsel for the Respondent readily conceded that "Mr. Dukett was telling the truth if he says he was snowed in and couldn't come to work," Kahn denied that snow storms kept Dukett from work , further denied that the winter of 1947-48 was one of the most severe experienced, and declared that he knew of no rural roads being blocked by snow during that season . Kahn's defiance of his own counsel's concession and of facts generally known as to New England's weather during that period cast doubt upon his reliability as a witness. In any event, no evidence was adduced to show that Dukett was ever reprimanded for his absences, or warned that they might bring about his discharge. The Trial Examiner finds Kahn's claim to be without merit. Nadeau. Considerable confusion surrounds the case of Nadeau , as presented by the Respondent, both in the pleadings and the testimony. The answer, filed before the hearing, alleges that she was both laid off and quit her employment on March 5. At the hearing the answer was amended to allege further that she was also discharged on the same date . In the maze of testimony elicited concerning these mutually inconsistent allegations, the Trial Examiner discerns no claim or proffered proof from any management official that Nadeau actually quit her employment on March 5, or any other day. There is in the record a letter adding little clarity to the confusion, dated September 22, 1948, addressed by Roehner to Mrs. Nadeau's husband, from which the following is quoted : 838914-59-vol. 82-28 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We are having a hearing in the near future in connection with N. L. R. B. and Marion's name is being used among others. It would help us in this matter if we obtain from you the date that you acquired your farm and any other information you care to give us to indicate that Marion did not intend to work here anyway. If Mr. Nadeau supplied the information sought, it was not offered at the hear- ing. In the absence of any proof that Marie Nadeau quit her employment on March 5, the Trial Examiner must conclude the claim to be without merit. Both Kahn and Knuckles testified at length concerning Nadeau's shortcomings and undesirability as an employee. In general, Kahn said he decided he could "spare" Nadeau and let her go "particularly due to the fact that production was going through slower at that particular time." That characterization of the current condition in the plant is in direct conflict with his previous testimony that in "January, February and March . . . our production was steadily increas- ing." As to his specific reasons for choosing Nadeau for lay-off, Kahn cited the fol- lowing, in substance: (1) throughout her entire employment, amounting to nearly 2 years, she had been a "constant trouble-maker," not only in her own department, of which her husband was foreman, but also in an adjoining depart- ment; (2) fights were "constant" between Nadeau and other employees in both departments; (3) because of quarrels with Nadeau one girl quit "in tears," one man who "didn't cry" gave up his job, and another man would have left had he not been transferred; (4) arguments ensued from . . . repeated retorts" engaged in by Nadeau and other girls in which "some rather vile language" was used, "particularly on Marion's part"; (5) she complained unnecessarily about the "peculiar odor" of new lacquer he had purchased; (6) she was "not well," on several occasions "had become ill in the plant," and once had fainted "and had to be taken home"; (7) she was "nervous" and "underweight"; (8) she and her husband "were interested in buying a farm"; (9) her husband was also in "poor health," due to an industrial accident in the same plant before the Respondent took it over ; (10) she once threatened that if her husband was not given an increase they would go elsewhere to work ; (11) sometime in January he had heard the Nadeau's were offering their house for sale ; and (12) once she had kicked "a chest or a dresser," doing damage "of no great extent." For these reasons among others, according to Kahn, he decided to lay Nadeau off temporarily on March 5, and then discharged her outright after she had made her parting remark as to Jews. Knuckles, who followed Kahn as a witness, described about the same details of Nadeau's employment, although in somewhat more temperate fashion. Although for reasons already noted, Kahn's testimony is so replete with con- tradictions as to deprive it of trustworthiness, it appears that Nadeau was nervous, and probably addicted to making unnecessary complaints and engaging in quarrels. (As to her work, however, Kahn admitted that "we had no com- plaint as to the actual operations which she was handling.") But because of Kahn's unreliability as a witness, the Trial Examiner is unable to determine where the basic fault lay in the incidents cited by him and therefore cannot appraise their cumulative seriousness. Nor is it necessary to attempt the impossible. Even if Kahn's characterization of Nadeau as an employee be accepted as its face value, he further said that she had been "kept in our employ as long as she VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 423 had" because her husband, the foreman, "was a very important person in the operation of that department." No evidence was offered by the Respondent to show that Foreman Nadeau's importance to the department had diminished in any respect on March 5, when his wife was discharged.1° It is plain, therefore, that for 2 years, even if Kahn is to be believed, Mrs. Nadeau was an acceptable employee, whatever her shortcomings. It is likewise clear that other reasons than those advanced by Kahn prompted her discharge. The Trial Examiner con- cludes and finds that the reasons given by him for Nadeau's "lay-off" are with- out meritl' As to the remark made by Nadeau after receiving her final pay check on the morning of March 5, upon which Kahn bases his claim that not until then was she actually discharged, Nadeau readily admitted having uttered it in anger. The fact is not in dispute. Since it has previously been found that her discharge preceded her remark, there remains only the question as to the Respondent's implied claim that her outburst is a valid reason for refusing her reinstatement. The Trial Examiner does not willingly assume the pontifical posture of trying to weigh, on his own fallible scales, the moral code of others. Being a native of New England, however, he is not unaware that there, as elsewhere in the United States, religious and racial prejudices exist and are, unfortunately, fre- quently expressed and exhibited. It appears that racial and religious prejudices, like those of a political and economic nature, are but symptoms of a disease gen- erally prevalent throughout the world, which someone long ago termed "man's inhumanity toward men." And, in fairness to his native New England the Trial Examiner must observe out of his experience that he can detect little difference in the basic social disease of intolerance, whether its symptoms are displayed in a Vermont furniture factory or at the four-power negotiating tables in Germany. Without condoning the text of Nadeau's intemperate comment to Kahn, it must be noted that the incident was not without genuine provocation. She her- self was of a local minority group and her claim that she "was just getting back when they were calling me . . . 'Frog'" may not be lightly dismissed. And she had just been summarily discharged under circumstances which reasonably caused her to believe that she was being discriminated against and her liveli- hood being taken from her. Her resentment was natural, even if expressed in terms of her unnatural religious prejudices. The Trial Examiner is of the opinion that her remarks, under the circumstances described by all witnesses, were not of a character to deprive her of any rights guaranteed under the Act. c. Conclusions as to the discharges The Trial Examiner is convinced, by the preponderance of credible evidence, that the real reason for the Respondent's discharge of Dukett, Nadeau and Desilets was their activity on behalf of the Union, and their attendance at the union meeting on March 4. It is therefore found that the discharges were dis- criminatory, for the purpose of discouraging union membership. By these dis- charges, as well as by Knuckles' demand, in effect, that Desilets and Dukett chose between their union adherence and the Company, and the superintendent's inquiry of Dukett as to whether or not he had signed a union card, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights 'guaranteed by the Act. Soon after Mrs. Nadeau's discharge her husband did, in fact, quit. ar See Edward 0. Budd Mfg. Co., 138 F. (2d) 86 (C. C. A. 3). 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in Section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, 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 Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and Lake certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Edmond J. Desilets, Marie A. Nadeau, Harry A. Dukett, and Forest Belnap because of their union activities. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent offer to these employees, excepting Desilets, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make all four employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings during said period. 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. Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ed- mond J. Desilets, Marie A. Nadeau, Harry A. Dukett, and Forest Belnap, thereby discouraging membership in Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of 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 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the amended Act, the Trial Ex- aminer recommends that Vermont American Furniture Corporation, Orleans, Vermont, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : u In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression "former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher. ever possible and if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equiva. lent position " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827. VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION 425 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., or In any other labor organization of its employees , by dis- criminatorily discharging, refusing to reinstate, or by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment ; (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., 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 pro- tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Trial Examiner finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Forest Belnap, Marie A. Nadeau, and Harry A. Dukett immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and Edmond J. Desilets whole in the manner set forth in Section V above, entitled "The Remedy"; (b) Post at its plant in Orleans, Vermont, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, after being signed by representatives of the Re- spondent, shall 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 notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered with any other material ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respond- ent has taken to comply herewith. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other party of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Imme- diately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. State- ments of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board. 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Dated at Washington, D. C., this 30th day of November, 1948. C. W. WHITTEMORE, Trial Examiner. APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT 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 UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L. or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju- dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Marie A. Nadeau Forest Belnap Harry A. Dukett WE WILL MAKE WHOLE the following named employee for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of the discrimination. Edmond J. Desilets 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 and tenure of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. VERMONT AMERICAN FURNITURE CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------------------- By---------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.