Stainless Ware Co. of America

In the Matter Of STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) In the Matter of STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA and MARIAN URICK In the Matter Of STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA and NEVA COOPER, VIRGINIA LAWRENCE, MARIE E. JANKA, DOROTHY GREGOR Cases Nos. 7-C-1747, 7-C-1802, and 7-CA-8.-Decided November 21,1949 DECISION AND ORDER On August 17, 1949, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find- ing 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Union, the charging parties, and the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent submitted a supporting brief. The Board 1 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent with the Decision and Order herein. 'Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 87 NLRB No. 27. 138 STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 139 (1) While the matter is not free from doubt, we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the April 1947 lay-off was caused by economic necessity, and that the Respondent did not change its' seniority system at that time in order to rid itself of union adherents . The lay-off reduced the number of employees by approximately 50 percent. The record does not show to what extent, if any, union adherents would have retained their employment had the original seniority system remained in effect. For this reason , and for the additional reasons set forth in the Intermediate Report, we find that the record does not support a finding that the April 1947 lay-off was illegally motivated. (2) The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent 's deviations from its new seniority list, in determining which employees should be laid off, were not discriminatory . We do not agree with respect to the lay-off of employees Doris Davis and Eva Dixon. Although both Davis and Dixon had greater seniority in the Small Press Depart- ment than employee F. L. Wright, nevertheless Davis was laid off on April 8, 1947, and Dixon on April 10, 1947, whereas Wright was not laid off until April 23, 1947. At the time of the lay-off, the Union's organizational efforts had reached major proportions . Both Davis and Dixon were outstanding contributors to these efforts , as evidenced by their participation in the April 4 union demonstration , which had been watched by members of management. Both had been active in signing up new members, and knowledge of these activities can be imputed to the Respondent because of its general surveillance of union activities .2 To lay off these two active union advocates during the Union's organizational drive before their names were reached on the seniority list not only tended to disrupt the Union 's organizing efforts but also served notice on other employees that union advocacy might adversely affect their tenure of employment. We therefore find, contrary to the Trial Examiner , that by laying off Davis and Dixon before Wright, the Respondent discriminated in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Davis and Dixon, in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3 ) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act as amended.3 Accordingly , eve shall order the Respondent to make Davis and Dixon whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of this discrimination. 2 Barr Packing Company, 82 NLRB 1. 3In making this finding, we are not unmindful of the fact that neither Davis nor Dixon questioned her lay-off by reason of her departmental seniority . The record, however, does not show that either Davis or Dixon was aware of her respective position on a list pre- pared and retained by the Respondent. As the record does not establish that Dixon had seniority rights in any but the Small Press Department, we have not disturbed the Trial Examiner's finding that she was not discriminatorily denied "bumping" privileges. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (3) We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that employee Annabel Breeze was discharged because of her union membership and activities, about which the Respondent had knowledge, and not because she inadvertently' damaged one of the Respondent 's dies. While such damage was admittedly due to Breeze, the testimony as to the extent of the damage and the degree of negligence was sharply con- flicting. George Hendrian, assistant plant superintendent in charge of the tool die room, one of the Respondent's witnesses , described the condition of the die in question as "cracked at the top." He ad- mitted that it was repaired shortly after the accident, and that a substitute die which was available had not been put into operation. It is therefore apparent that Breeze's mistake did not cost the Respondent the loss of a die or a serious disruption of production. Furthermore, Hendrian also testified that he had repaired dies dam- aged by misuse on previous occasions . Plant Superintendent Crowe, a discredited witness, stated at the hearing that other unnamed em- ployees had been discharged for such misuse of dies. However, the Respondent presented no records or other evidence to support Crowe's statement . Under these circumstances , we find that the Respondent did not, as a matter of policy, summarily discharge employees for damaging dies by inadvertently inserting two pieces of stock at the same time. Therefore, and also in view of Crowe 's avowed deter- mination to utilize any "mis-move" on the part of union adherents .as a pretext for their discharge , and of the other factors set forth in the Intermediate Report, we affirm the Trial Examiner 's finding that Annabel Breeze was discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act and of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as amended. . (4) The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent discriminatorily transferred Marian Urick from her job as production clerk, and later discharged her, because of her activities on behalf of the Union , The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent be ordered to reinstate Urick to her job as production clerk. At the time of the hearing, however , that job had been discontinued as part of the Respondent's general retrenchment program. Therefore, we shall order the Respondent to reinstate Urick to her former job as production clerk if that job, has been reestablished, or to a sub- stantially equivalent job, or to a job as a production employee if no substantially equivalent jobs are available at the time of her rein- statement, with the right to be promoted to production clerk or a substantially equivalent position when such positions become avail- able. We shall also order the Respondent to make Urick whole for any loss in wages she would have earned absent the Respondent's discriminatory transfer and discharge. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 141 ORDER Upon the entire record in this 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, Stainless Ware Company of America, Walled Lake, Michigan, its officers, agents, :successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or in any other labor organization of its em- ployees, by discharging and 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 employment; (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member- ship and activities and the identity of employees attending union meetings ; engaging in surveillance of union meetings ; threatening bodily harm or loss of jobs to employees unless they cease their union activities; threatening a reduction in work if the above-named Union or any other labor organization organized the plant; polling employees to determine whether they desire to be represented by a labor organization ; prohibiting the solicitation of union member- ships on company property during nonworking time; 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 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the ex- tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as au- thorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Florence Bjork and Annabel Breeze immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay that she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her by pay- ment of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD earned as wages during the period from the date of the Respondent's discrimination against her to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period; (b) Offer to Marian Urick immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, or should such a posi- tion not be available, to a job as a production employee, with the right to be promoted to production clerk or it substantially equivalent posi- tion when such positions become available, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the Respondent's discriminatory transfer to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period; (c) Make whole Doris Davis and Eva Dixon for any loss of pay that they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the Respondent's discriminatory lay-off to the date when she would have been laid off in accordance with the Respondent's seniority list, less her net earnings during such period; (d) Rescind immediately the rule prohibiting solicitation on the Respondent's property insofar as it applies to union solicitation dur- ing the employees' nonworking time : (e) Post at its plant, in Walled Lake, Michigan, copies of the no- tice attached hereto, marked Appendix A.4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there- after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees 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; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and In the event this Order is enforced by a 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." STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 143 tenure of employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy Gregor, Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, and Myrtle Geliske, and insofar as it alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act as amended, except as otherwise found. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : AVE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) or any other labor organiza- tion, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliations or activities and the identity of employees attending union meetings. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings. AVE WILL NOT threaten our employees with bodily harm or loss of jobs unless they cease their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a reduction in work if the above-named Union or any other labor organization suc- ceeds in organizing our employees. WE WILL NOT poll our employees to determine whether they de- sire to be represented by the above-named Union or any other labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec- tion 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE HEREBY RESCIND our rule forbidding solicitation on company property insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on the em- ployees' nonworking time. WE WILL OFFER to Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as the result of our discrimina- tion against them. WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Doris Davis and Eva Dixon for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Employer. By ------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated---------------------------- 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 George A. Sweeney, Esq.; and Jerome H. Brooks, Esq., for the General Counsel. Clark, Klein, Brucker and Waples, by H. William Butler, Esq., of Detroit, Mich., for the Respondent. Charles L. Barnes, Esq., of Pontiac, Mich., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, and by Marian Urick, Neva Cooper, Virginia Lawrence, Marie E. Janka, and Dorothy Gregor, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) issued a complaint dated October 20, 1948, against Stainless Ware Company of America, Walled Lake, Michigan, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, prior to amendment, herein called the Wagner Act, and of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, com- plaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the Respondent (1) on various dates between February 6 and April 22, 1947, ' The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to as the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 145 discriminatorily discharged 12 named employees, herein collectively called the Complainants, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because they had joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection and (2) from January 1, 1947, to the date of the issuance of the complaint, by certain officers, agents, and supervisory employees interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Wagner Act and the Act by (a) on April 8, 1947, publishing and enforcing a rule of discipline which prohibited solicitation of union membership on' company prop- erty under any conditions at any time; (b) engaging in surveillance of meetings of its employees held for the purpose of mutual air and protection; (c) ordering and directing certain of its employees to engage in surveillance of other of its employees in their concerted activities; (d) questioning certain employees as to whether they had attended union meetings or were going to attend such meetings and inquiring as to the identity of other of its employees who attended such meetings; (e) on March 5, 1947, requiring all employees to attend during work- ing hours meetings at which each employee was required to express his desire as to whether he desired to be represented by a labor organization for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Respondent; (f) granting wage increases to certain employees for the purpose of discouraging employees' membership in, and activity on behalf of the Union; (g) informing certain employees that the tenure of their employment would be more secure if they informed Respondent as to concerted activities of other employees in behalf of the Union; and (h) informing certain employees that other employees were threatening to do them bodily harm unless they discontinued their membership in and activity in behalf of the Union. The complaint alleged that by the foregoing conduct the Re- spondent engaged in violations of Section 8. (1) and (3) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. On November 4, 1948, the Respondent filed its answer, in part admitting certain allegations of the complaint, but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held from November 8 to 17, 19491, at Pontiac, Michigan, before Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, the undersigned Trial Ex- aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by an official representative and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the General Counsel moved that the com- plaint be amended so as to allege an additional act of interference with, re- straint, and coercion of its employees' rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Wagner Act and the Act and a consequent violation of Section 8 (1) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act on the part of the Respondent by its transfer of Marian Urick on or about March 15, 1947, from a clerical to a production position for the purpose of discouraging membership and activity in behalf of the Union. The undersigned granted the motion but stated that he might rescind the ruling in the Intermediate Report if, upon further con- sideration, he should be convinced that the requested amendment of the com- plaint was barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act, which states that "no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made." The undersigned is of the 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD opinion that the granting of the motion to amend was proper and the ruling is adhered to. On August 21, 1947, Marian Urick filed a charge in Case No. 7-C- 1802 alleging that she and seven other employees had been discriminatorily dis- charged in March and April 1947, and also alleging the following : The said company, through its officers and agents, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and by other acts not herein set forth has interfered with the rights of its employees to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. It is conceded that a copy of this charge was promptly served upon the Respond- ent. The amendment clearly falls within the general allegation of this charge which was timely filed with the Board and served upon the Respondent .2 A motion by the Respondent to amend its answer so as to deny the allegations of the amendment to the complaint was granted. At the conclusion of the hear- ing, the undersigned granted a' motion by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof as to dates, spelling, and minor variances. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned advised the parties that they might argue bofore, and file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both, with the Trial Examiner. The parties waived oral argument. On January 10 and 11, 1949, respectively, the General Counsel and the Respondent each filed a brief with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Stainless Ware Company of America, a Michigan corporation with its prin- cipal office and place of business at Walled Lake, Michigan, and with a ,ware- house and showroom in Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in the manufacture of housewares in the form of kitchen utensils and miscellaneous items made of metal. During the calendar year of 1947, the Respondent purchased quantities of supplies and raw materials valued at $434,094, of which approximately 53 percent came from sources outside the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Respondent's sales of finished products amounted to approximately $1,885,264, of which approximately 87 percent was shipped to sources outside the State of Michigan and/or to customers within the State for shipment outside the State of Michigan. The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. 2 Cf. Morristown Knitting Hills, 80 NLRB 731. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 147 III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory statement The issues as framed by the complaint, namely whether the Respondent engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act and the cor- responding sections of the Wagner Act, are by no means novel at this point in the history of the Board. The principal problem has been to determine as accurately as possible the course of events from the testimony which, as between the General Counsel's and the Respondent's witnesses was in sharp conflict on many crucial points. In resolving the infinite and crucial conflicts in testimony, the. undersigned has considered such factors as corroborative testimony, support offered by documentary evidence, and the impression rendered on him by the witnesses as they testified. The undersigned has not mentioned those incidents which he regards as unsubstantial in character, unrelated to the issues in con- sideration, or unsupported by a fair preponderance of credible evidence. B. The plant; history and operations The Respondent commenced its operations in 1937, with the manufacture of stainless steel skillets in a small plant at Walled Lake, a small community in a rural area near Pontiac and Detroit, Michigan. Gradually the plant ex- panded, adding the production of saucepans to its stainless steel line. About 1942, pursuant to governmental order, the Respondent ceased its production of kitchen utensils and devoted its efforts to the manufacture of precision parts for war production. At that time, 27 or 28 employees worked in the kitchen utensil division. Further expansion of . the plant increased the number of employees to approximately 300. Shortly before the end of the war, the Re- spondent resumed production of kitchen utensils and, in the period immediately following the war, expanded its line of products to an extensive number of items in stainless steel. In addition to the production of kitchen utensils, the Respondent also oper- ated a "stud department" devoted to the manufacture of a bolt with different threading on each end. In this department, 35 employees worked. The Re- spondent's operations are divided in 3 divisions : kitchen utensil, stud, and tool and die. The proceeding is concerned with the employees of the kitchen utensil division. The demand for the Respondent's stainless steel products was great in the immediate postwar years, but by late 1946, business prospects declined and the Repondent curtailed its operations in January 1947, by discontinuing its sec- ond shift operations, with the exception of a small maintenance force and a few employees performing production work on special items. Many of the second shift employees transferred to jobs on the first shift. C. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Myrtle Geliske Myrtle Geliske entered the Respondent's employ on September 13, 1944. She worked initially for 10 months in the sun ray department, polishing kitchen utensils. Being physically unable to work at a task requiring her to stand, she was transferred, at her request, about July 1945, to the position of matron of the ladies rest room. Her immediate supervisor was Maude Packer Mack, personnel director for the Respondent. 877359-50-vol. 87-11 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In December 1946 and January 1947, Superintendent Berkley Crowe on sev- eral occasions instructed Geliske to keep the employees from congregating in the rest room during working hours and wasting time. In January 1947, Mack also gave similar instructions. In addition, according to Geliske, Mack asked Geliske "to find out what they were talking about." Geliske, -however, admitted that Mack never inquired about the union activities of employees in the rest room and never asked subsequently what were the subjects of the employees' conversation. In January 1947, at Geliske's request, Mack gave her a notice to post in the rest room forbidding employees from congregating and talking there during working hours. On February 6, 1947, Superintendent Crowe informed Mack that as part of the Respondent's retrenchment policy, hereinafter more fully discussed in connection with the April lay-off, he had determined to transfer Geliske from the matron position to production work and to shift employee Mary Walters from the production line to the matron's job. Walters had formerly been matron of the rest room on the second shift prior to its discontinuance, was then 69 years old, and having lost a finger in an accident on the production line, was not as dexterous in production work. Mack went to Geliske, informed her of the pending transfer, and explained the situation. Mack testified credibly that the following colloquy then ensued : [Geliske] said she didn't think that she could take it to go back, take it physically, that she couldn't take it to go back on production. . . . She questioned me as to the particular type of job. I told her that we would dis- cuss that with Mr. Crowe. She, her exact words were to me, "Well, if I quit, what about my Unemployment?" Or something like that. "What about my Unemployment?" I remember distinctly, and Myrtle knew that I had been connected with the Unemployment Compensation at that time and I told her that naturally I couldn't tell her what the decision of the claims examiner would be, but I could tell her what reaction they would have to someone's quitting one particular job without having ever tried or inquired about the other, and I said, "I can only give you my personal advice, Myrtle, if I were in your place I would certainly try the job and if I was not physically able to perform it, then I would feel that I, would be justified in quitting or taking whatever action you might wish. . . . I went back to my office and in a rather short time, I can't tell you how long, but I believe it was still before noon, she came into my office, and she said, "Mrs. Mack, I have decided to quit. I am not even going to try the job." Geliske's testimony was in general accord with that of Mack. except that Geliske was unable to recall whether she discussed the question of unemploy- ment compensation with Mack. Mack impressed the undersigned as an especially forthright, sincere, and honest witness. Her testimony is therefore credited and the undersigned finds that the conversation between Geliske and Mack occurred as testified to by the latter. Geliske testified that she asked Crowe what type of job she would be given and he told her that she would return to the percolator line and to wait and see Cecil Beebe, who was assistant to Crowe. She did not ask which particular job on the line would be assigned to her and did not consult Beebe. Crowe, on the other hand, denied that Geliske ever inquired as to the nature of the job on production to which she would be assigned. He testified that he had contemplated assigning her to a job assembling small parts for a teakettle STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 149 whistle and to cleaninng teakettles. The operator could perform these tasks sitting in a chair. Apparently, Walters occupied a similar position before her transfer to the matron's job. Mack's testimony was corroborative to a certain extent of Crowe on this issue. Although the undersigned has not credited other portions of Crowe's testi- mony, hereinafter discussed, the undersigned finds that Crowe' s testimony in respect to Geliske is entitled to credence, being supported by the testimony of Mack, an impressive witness, and having considerable persuasion as to the probable course of events when considered. in light of the conversation between Mack and Geliske. The undersigned accordingly finds that Geliske did not inquire of Crowe as to the nature of the production job in question, that the job on the production line to which she would have been transferred could have been performed seated at a bench or table, and that Geliske quit the Respondent's employ without inquiring as to the nature of the job to which she was to be transferred. Apparently the General Counsel contends that Geliske's termination of employment was a "constructively" discriminatory discharge, because of her activities in the Union-that is, that the Respondent proposed to transfer her from the matron job to a more arduous job on the production line which she could not physically perform and that she was there- fore forced to terminate her employment. The undersigned finds no merit in such theories. It has been found above that the job to which Geliske was to be transferred was one which could have been performed seated at a bench or table and apparently one which she would have been physically able to perform. In addition, the exchange of Walters and Geliske in the jobs in question seems reasonable. Walters was considerably older than Geliske, had suffered a permanent injury to a hand, was unable to perform her production tasks dexterously, and had served as matron for a considerable time on the night shift. Furthermore, there is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Re- spondent was aware of Geliske's union activities or sympathies at the time of the termination of her employment or, for that matter, that she had participated in any union or concerted activities to an appreciable extent at such time. Geliske testified that subsequent to leaving the Respondent's employ, she became active in the Union "because we didn't talk openly about it in the shop at the time I was there." According to employee Egbert Mersino, employees first discussed the possibility of organization in early January 1947. In mid- February, after she had left the Respondent's employ, Geliske obtained union application cards and gave them to Mersino. The first organizational meeting of the employees was held on March 4, 1947. In view of these factors and the entire record, the undersigned finds that the Respondent was not illegally motivated in suggesting the transfer of Geliske from the matron job to a position on the production line, that Geliske volun- tarily quit the Respondent's employ on February 6, 1947, and that the Re- spondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of Geliske's employment in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act or Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. D. Interference, restraint, and coercion, March 4 and 5, 1947 1. Advent of Union ; sequence of events. As previously mentioned, discussion among the employees as to the possibili- ties of organizing 'commenced in January 1947. In mid-February application 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cards were obtained. On the evening of March 4, 1947, the first meeting of employees and an organizer of the Union was held. Employee Eva Dixon testified that on March 4, 1947, about 4: 20 p. in., im- mediately prior to the end of her work day, the following occurred : I was working and Mr. [William] Kelly [foreman of the polishing and buffing department] came up and asked me if I was going to the Union meeting. . . . I said, "No." . . Then Mr. [Cecil] Beebe [assistant super- intendent over the kitchen utensil division] came up and he had a Union card and he asked me if I wanted it. I asked him, "For what." And he said, "For the meeting." . .. Well, we were talking about the meeting, I didn't know anything about it but Mr. Crowe came up, he said, "I also got an invitation." He said, "Are you going to this meeting tonight?" I said, "I don't know anything about it." I asked him where it would be and he said in Walled Lake.' Kelly denied that he ever talked to Dixon about union meetings or asked her if she attended them. Crowe did not specifically deny the testimony of Dixon above related but stated generally that he never asked employees if they at- tended union meetings or endeavored to find out if they did. Beebe, who ap- peared under subpena as a witness for the General Counsel in rebuttal, testified that he and Crowe discussed the organizational activities of their employees prior to the meeting of March 4. His testimony indicates that he was aware that the meeting was to be held on March 4, but he was not questioned in respect to this conversation with Dixon. Upon the entire record and upon the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Dixon's testimony in this regard and finds that Supervisors Kelly, Crowe, and Beebe wade the inquiries testified to by Dixon. The same afternoon , March 4, employee June Wickline informed Assistant Superintendent Beebe, according to the latter's credible testimony, that she planned to attend the meeting. However, Wickline did not actually attend the meeting that evening. She observed the employees gathering in a drug store in Walled Lake, Michigan, prior to going to the meeting which was held in an apartment above the drug store, made a list of the employees so as- sembled, and, in the presence of employee Mary Smith, telephoned the home of Richard Lewis, president of the Respondent, stated that "there was something going on at the drug store, that they should know," and that she had a list of names. Thereafter, she telephoned Foreman William Kelly and Paul Lewis, brother of Richard Lewis and at that time supervisor of the plant cafeteria, but neither of these calls was answered. Wickline then told Smith that Wickline was "supposed to return these names in the office . . . the next morning." According to Smith, the following morning she encountered Wickline as the latter emerged from President Lewis' office and Smith asked Wickline "how she made out." Wickline replied that Smith "would know later." Foreman Beebe testified that Wickline gave him a list of names of employees who attended union meetings and that Wickline "is supposed to have covered a certain meeting at Walled Lake and these names are supposed to have been the people seen entering the hall." Employee Bronnis Haney, who attended some of the early meetings of the Union, also gave him the names of employees 3 Crowe was superintendent over all divisions of the plant . Beebe, directly subordinate to Crowe , was in charge of all departments of the kitchen utensil division . In the record, Beebe is referred to under various job titles. For the purpose of clarity, his position is referred to herein as assistant superintendent. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 151 in attendance at such meetings. Beebe, in turn, relayed the information given him by Wickline and Haney to Superintendent Crowe.' On the morning of March 5, 1947, employee Egbert Mersino, who had attended the union meeting at Walled Lake the night before, was sent by his foreman, William Kelly, to the office of Superintendent Crowe. There, Crowe asked Mer- sino whether he was "dissatisfied working there, and wanted to know just what the trouble was. I asked him .what he meant. He says I was causing a lot of trouble ; I was trying to organize the plant. . . . And he said I was a trouble maker and an agitator, and then he told me that . . . somebody in the plant was going to hit me over the head ... [with ] a spade ... for organ- izing the union." However, Crowe refused to identify the maker of the threat. Crowe inquired whether Mersino had attended the union meeting at Walled Lake the night before. When Mersino admitted that he had been present, Crowe inquired as to the names of other employees in attendance at the meeting, but Mersino refused to divulge the information.' Shortly after Mersino returned to work, he was sent by Foreman Kelly to President Lewis' office, around 8: 30 a. in. Mersino testified that the following conversation ensued: He [Lewis] asked me what the hell was the matter, wanted to know why I was causing so much trouble . . . I told him that I didn't figure I was causing any trouble . .. He said, "Well , you are. You are just an agitator a The findings in this and the preceding paragraphs are based upon the credible testi- mony of Beebe and Smith . In considering Beebe's testimony , the undersigned is mindful of Beebe's admission, in respect to the termination of his employment, "I figured I got a pretty raw deal" from the Respondent. However, Beebe impressed the undersigned as an honest witness, frank and candid in his testimony. Furthermore, his testimony on other issues supports the position taken by counsel for the Respondent and therefore demonstrates his objectivity as a witness and lack of willful bias in his testimony. Wick- line's testimony is in accord with that of Smith as to certain details of the occurrences on the night of March 4, 1947, at Walled Lake, but Wickline denied that she had compiled a list of employees attending the meeting or telephoned President Lewis. She also denied that any supervisor had ever qusetioned her in respect to union activities or meetings of the employees and that she was in Lewis' office the morning of March 5. She admitted making a telephone call on the evening of March 4 , in Smith's presence but, on cross-exam- ination, refused to divulge the identity of the person she called, testifying that she could not remember his name. Haney denied that she had ever given Beebe information with respect to meetings of the Union. Lewis denied that Wickline had ever telephoned him, that he ever had a list of employees who attended union meetings, and that Wickline was in his office on March 5. It was stipulated that if Crowe were recalled as a witness, he would deny the testimony of Beebe. Upon the entire record and the subsequent course of events, as well as the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the testimony of Wick- line, Haney, Lewis, and Crowe is not credited. 5 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Mersino. Crowe specifically denied the statements attributed to him by Mersino, but admitted that he had a conversation in his office with Mersino on the morning of March 5. According to Crowe, an unidentified person telephoned him on March 4, and asked, "How would you like to find one of, your employees shoved in a snow bank?" When Crowe sought to identify the employee threatened, the caller replied, "A fellow that works in the Polishing and Buffing Department named Bert." The next morning Crowe asked Kelly, foreman of the polishing and buffing department, whether there was an employee named Bert in that de- partment and Kelly pointed out Mersino. Whereupon, Crowe asked that Mersino be sent to Crowe's office and Crowe told him about the telephone call. According to Crowe, Mer- sine then said , "He went over to Walled Lake to get some groceries and met some of the girls over there and had a little meeting." Upon the entire record, including the fact found above that a list of employees who attended the union meeting at Walled Lake on March 4 , had been given Beebe, who in turn submitted it to Crowe , as well as his impres- sion of the witnesses, the undersigned finds Crowe's denials not entitled to credence. It is found that the colloquy between Crowe and Mersino occurred as testified to by Mersino. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD here, a trouble maker." I asked him what he meant ... He said, "You know what I mean. It is about this union business; organizing this place. . .. ' I told him that the people all seemed for it .. . . He said he didn't believe it. We argued back and forth for a little while. . . . He said it would cost the Company an awful lot of money if they got the union in there . . . He said that he couldn't afford to do it right then, he said if it was three or four, maybe six months later, maybe it would be different. . . Mr..Lewis said if the union come in you'd be cut down to eight hours a day, and three and four days a week. . . . I told him I didn't see why that would be necessary, it would be for their own advantage .. . Mr. Lewis told me that Mr. Crowe remarked to him that there was a man or men in the plant threatening to get me . . . If I didn't cut out this union organization . . . I asked him if he could name the parties, and he said, "No." Lewis admitted that he had a conversation with Mersino on or about March 5, 1947, but denied that he instigated the interview. According to Lewis, Mersino requested an appointment and was summoned when Lewis was free. Lewis testified that the conversation commenced by Mersino's requesting a loan of between $300 and $500 and that Lewis declined to make such a loan because of the somewhat perilous business conditions then confronting the Respondent. According to Lewis, Mersino told him that the employees "would have better conditions if they had a Union in the plant" and that "there was a number of people in the plant that wanted a Union," but Lewis "only talked to him in a general line." Lewis specifically denied the statements and inquiries attributed to him by Mersino. From his observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the case, including (1) the fact that Wickline had telephoned Lewis the night before in respect to the meeting at Walled Lake and that Wickline had submitted to the Respondent a list of employees attending the meeting, (2). the discouraging business outlook then confronting the Respondent, hereinafter discussed, and (3) the events occurring in a meeting of all employees held by Lewis immediately after his interview with Mersino, the undersigned is persuaded and finds that the conversation between Lewis and Mersino occurred as testified to by the latter. Soon after the day shift commenced work on March 5, Darlene Gortner, an inspector who had attended the union meeting the night before in Walled Lake, was summoned to Superintendent Crowe's office. Crowe asked her where she had been the night before and Gortner replied that she had attended a show in Walled Lake. Crowe asked her whether she had attended a union meeting, stated that he knew about the meeting, and asked who was present. When Gortner replied that she did not know, Crowe stated that he knew who had attended e About 10 a. in. March 5, 1947, all employees, including, supervisors, were assembled in the cafeteria of the Respondent's plant. President Lewis presided over the meeting and commenced the discussion by stating that the Respondent's business prospects for the coming. months were not particularly good, because of a decrease in the amount of sales, and that consequently a lay-off of employees might be necessary. He also stated that a number of the stainless steel pans, rated as seconds, were available for purchase by the employees at half price. He d The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Gortner. To a certain extent, her testimony was corroborated by that of employee Florence G. Bjork. Crowe denied that he ever had a conversation with Gortner about the union meeting of March 4. For the reasons stated above, the undersigned does not deem Crowe' s denial worthy of credence. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 153 then introduced the admittedly main topic for discussion, the question of the employees' organizational efforts. Lewis stated that he had been informed that some of the employees desired to have a union represent the employees and that he had received a telephone call the evening before in regard to the union meeting at Walled Lake. He further stated that the purpose of the. present meeting was to determine whether the employees wanted a union to represent them and in the event they did, he would call in an organizer for the Union to perfect the organization, and presumably sign a contract. Employee Bjork protested the haste in reaching a decision on the matter, suggesting that the decision be deferred until after a union meeting that night, which the employees might attend and learn the purposes of the Union. Lewis, however, declined to delay a decision in the matter and urged the employees to determine then and there whether they wanted a union to represent them. When Lewis stated that the relationship between the Respondent and its employees had always been that of a happy family and inquired why the employees needed a union, employees Annabel Breeze and Virginia Lawrence raised a question as to the administration of the Respondent's system of automatic pay increases after employees had obtained a certain number of months' seniority, contending that many employees were entitled to maximum rates because of their length of service but had not received the increases. Lewis sent for Personnel Manager Mack and asked her to explain the Respondent's system of automatic increases in pay. Mack explained the system and Lewis asked all employees who. were entitled to, but -lad not received, higher rates of pay because of their length of service to raise either hand. Between 35 and 40 employees raised their hands. Lewis promised that the situation would be rectified in the next pay period and all who were entitled to automatic increases would receive them. Lewis then asksd for one of the employees to preside over the meeting, and for the employees to discuss the matter and decide whether they desired to have a union represent them. Employee Anthony Swek took control of the meeting and Lewis and all supervisors withdrew from the meeting to the Respondent's offices in a nearby building. A brief discussion ensued with various employees expressing their opinions. Swek -asked the employees in favor of the Union to raise their hands. About 10 indi- cated that they wanted the Union. Swek adjourned the meeting and suggested that the employees return to work. In about 10 minutes, all employees were again ordered to assemble in the cafeteria. Lewis explained that the employees had not informed him of their -decision. He was told of the result of the show-of-hands vote. 'Lewis expressed doubt as to the fairness of conducting such an open vote and directed a second vote to be held by secret ballot. A ballot box was constructed, ballots distributed, .and four employees were appointed as tellers. Before the ballots were placed in the box, Lewis and the supervisory staff retired from. the cafeteria. Lewis returned when the ballots were being counted. The balloting resulted in 43 'votes for the Union and 155 against the Union. Lewis then told the employees to have their lunch.? 7 The findings as to the meetings in the cafeteria on March 5, 1947, are a composite of the credible testimony of the numerous witnesses called by the General Counsel and by the Respondent. Nearly all of the General Counsel's witnesses insisted that Lewis con- .ducted the show-of-hands vote at the first meeting in the cafeteria. However, Beebe and Paul Lewis, who were called as witnesses by the General Counsel, corroborated the testimony of witnesses for the Respondent that Lewis and the supervisors left the first meeting before the vote was taken. The undersigned is persuaded that the events occurred ..as related in the text above and that the witnesses were confused as to the balloting pro- cedure. Possibly, they confused the show-of-hands balloting conducted by Lewis in respect 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Conclusions As soon as the Union's organizational campaign assumed concrete and overt form, the Respondent launched its counter-campaign in opposition to the con- certed activities of its employees. Thus, the afternoon before the first scheduled meeting of the Union, on March 4, 1947, Superintendent Crowe, Assistant Super- intendent Beebe, and Foreman Kelly asked employee Dixon whether she planned to attend the meeting. The names of those employees who attended the first meeting were supplied the Respondent by Wickline and Haney. The latter also gave additional infor- mation to the Respondent concerning subsequent meetings of the Union. Although the record does not establish positively that the Respondent directed Wickline and Haney to engage in surveillance of union meetings, it is clear that by accepting the information the Respondent indicated that Wickline and Haney were acting with the Respondent's approval. In subsequent conversations be-: tween supervisors and employees, as well as in President Lewis' remarks addressed to the assembled employees on March 5, reference was made to the information supplied by Wickline and Haney as to the union meetings. In these conversations, employees were questioned as to their union activities, their attendance of union meetings, and the identity of other employees present. In view of the Respondent's acceptance of the data supplied by Wickline and Haney, the use to which such information was put by the Respondent, and the subsequent interrogation of employees, the undersigned finds that such conduct by the Re- spondent constitued unlawful surveillance of organizational activity e On April 5, 1947, the morning after the union meeting, Superintendent Crowe interrogated employees Mersino and Gortner as to their concerted activities, to the wage rates with the first vote on the union issue. In any event, it is hardly likely that Lewis would reassemble the employees for the second balloting if he had conducted the first ballot and knew the desires of the employees. Moreover, witnesses forthe Gen- eral Counsel stated that the reason given for the second balloting was that employees had complained that the first show-of-hands ballot was unfair, but aside from a brief com- ment made by Mersino to his foreman, the record contains no evidence as to the specific complaints or the identity of employees making such complaint in respect to the method of conduct of the first vote. Testimony that Lewis conducted the first ballot with respect to the Union is therefore not credited. It should be noted that a myriad of conflicts as to the details of the meetings exists in the testimony of the various witnesses ; although some events ascribed by the undersigned to the first meeting, may have occurred at the second meeting, it is unnecessary to determine with infinite precision the exact course of events for the purpose of this Intermediate Report. Lewis testified that the reason he called the meeting was to determine whether the employees wanted a Union to represent them, because "I didn't want a lot of dissatisfaction in the plant. . . . The way I fig- ured, if they wanted a Union we would call a man in and get it going so we could go ahead on our production." He admitted that he made some of the statements set forth in the text above, but denied that he made any statement "for myself or for the Union," that he used the "happy family" analogy in respect to his relationship with the employees, or stated that there was no need for a union. In view of the fact that the meeting was called immediately after the first organizational meeting of the Union, before many employees were enrolled in its ranks, and upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned cannot credit Lewis' testimony as to the reason for the assemblage of the employees on March 5 or Lewis' denials of the statements set forth in the text. Additional statements were attributed to Lewis by various witnesses and were denied by him. The undersigned has not accorded them credence for the following reasons : (1) they were not in accord with the sequence of events or (2) they were attributed to Lewis by 1 or 2 wit- nesses without corroboration by the numerous witnesses called by the General Counsel or (3) the witnesses for the General Counsel were in disagreement as to the' nature of the statement. 8 Macon Textiles, 80 NLRB 1525 ; Boss Manufacturing Company, 78 NLRB 538; Sohde Pipe Line Company, 75 NLRB 858. Cf. S. TV. Evans cf Sons, 81 NLRB 161. STAINLESS' WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 155 their attendance at the meeting the night before, and the identity of other employees present at the meeting. Furthermore, Crowe relayed to Mersino a threat that "somebody in the plant was going to hit [Mersino] over the head . . . [with] a spade . . . for organizing the Union." President Lewis also reiterated the threat to Mersino that "there was a man or men in the plant threatening to get" Mersino unless lie "cut out this Union organization." In addition, Lewis inquired as to Mersino's union activities and threatened a reduction in working hours if the Union organized the plant. Later that morning, Lewis assembled the employees and addressed them. Although some of his remarks contained no threat of reprisal or promise of benefit and are therefore privileged speech, his inquiries as to the reason the employees desired to organize and his instruction that then and there the employees should decide by vote whether they desired to have the Union as their collective bargaining representative constituted unlawful interference and re- straint with the employees concerted activities. The fact that Lewis did not himself take the vote or was not present when the vote was taken does not affect this conclusion. The direction of Lewis resulted in the first vote by show of hands and also in the second vote by secret ballot and constituted unlawful conduct, per se, being illegal interference by the Respondent in a matter which was exclusively a concern of the employees.° The, undersigned concludes that by the foregoing conduct, statements, in- quiries, threats, and polling of employees, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act 10 E. The discriminatory discharge of employee Florence Bjork Bjork entered the Respondent's employ on November 20, 1945, and quit February 16, 1946. She was rehired on June 24, 1946, and was discharged March 12, 1947. Throughout her employment, she worked in the sun ray department of the kitchen utensil division. The 15 or 20 employees of this department, working generally in teams of 3 members, polished pans by hold- ing them with one hand on a rapidly revolving block while with the other hand a polish finish was obtained by use of an abrasive pad or stone. The employees worked at tables on 2 opposite sides of which were located the revolving chucks or blocks, 3 to a side. The blocks were about 3 or 4 feet apart. Four to six employees worked at a table. Bjork attended the union meeting at Walled Lake on March 4 and all suc- ceeding meetings. On March 4, she signed an application for membership in the Union and thereafter enlisted the membership of four other employees. At the meeting of employees in the cafeteria on March 5, she requested that Lewis defer the balloting until a union meeting to be held that evening, so that em- ployees might attend the meeting and determine the purpose and aims of organization. Lewis recalled that an employee urged that the vote be deferred but tesified that he did not know the identity of the employee. 9 Granite State Machine Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 79; Parkside Hotel, 74 NLRB 809. 11 It is not found that the promise of Lewis, made at the March 5 meeting, to give employ- ees their automatic increases to which they were entitled but had not been accorded was unlawful. The system of automatic increases had been in effect for some time and the matter of its administration was raised by employees at the meeting. The undersigned does not construe Lewis' statements in regard thereto as an attempt to deter the organiza- tional efforts of the Union by granting employees a wage increase. 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondent contends that Bjork was discharged for a justifiable cause,. not violative of the Act, namely, that she talked in a loud voice to other employees while working and thereby created an accident hazard by distracting the attention of employees from their work. The work of the sun ray depart- ment was somewhat hazardous ; if a sun ray operator performed his work in a careless manner, a pan or the abrasive material might be thrown off the rapidly revolving chuck with considerable force, hitting employees working: nearby" President Lewis testified that on five or six occasions when he visited the production floor of the plant, he observed Bjork talking in a loud tone of voice to employees in the sun ray department, and noticed that for a period of 10• or 15 minutes Bjork was not working but was talking to girls on the other side of the table. According to Lewis, he remonstrated to Superintendent Crowe- that Bjork's conversational tendencies created a hazard to other employees of the department but Crowe replied, "We can't do anything with her," although she had been warned not to talk. Thereupon, Lewis told Crowe, "Bert, before somebody gets hurt seriously, you ought to let her go." Crowe's testimony corroborated that of Lewis. Bjork testified that on March 12, 1947, she noticed Lewis in the buffing department looking at her and that at that time, Del George, Bjork's immediate supervisor, came to her and said, "Dynamite, watch your talking." 12 Accord- ing to Bjork, she had never before been reprimanded individually for talking at work, although George had on occasion warned the sun ray department and its component teams of three employees each, "We have to watch our- talking." George did not testify. Upon the entire record and his observation- of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Bjork's testimony as to this issue. At the close of the workday on March 12, Bjork was sent by Assistant Super- intendent Beebe to Crowe's office. According to the credible testimony of Bjork, Crowe said, `This is it . . . There is too much talking and not enough work going on in the Sun Ray Department" and discharged her.13 Beebe testified that he and Crowe knew that Bjork, among others, was active' in the Union and that while he and Crowe were discussing such activities, Crowe stated, "We will watch them and the first mis-move, that is it . . . that was the pay-off, made the final pay ticket out right then." Crowe denied that he ever talked with supervisors about the union activity of any employees and it was stipulated that if Crowe were recalled as a witness he would have specifically denied the testimony of Beebe. From his observation of the witnesses and for the reasons heretofore stated, the undersigned credits the testimony of Beebe. 11 Albert Dominick, who was safety director for the Respondent from March 1945 to about October 1948 , testified credibly as to the accident hazard in the department. He. further testified that in April and May 1946, 80 percent of the accidents in the Respond- ent's operation occurred in the kitchen utensil division and that of such 80 percent, 38 percent were in the sun ray department. He studied the operations of this department and recommended to Lewis or Crowe that "the employees should concentrate more on their- work and not be restricted from their operations , because the distraction of their opera- tions resulted in serious accidents ." It should be noted , however, that these particular- accidents, and his study thereof, occurred some 1.0 or 11 months prior to Bjork 's discharge- at a time when Bjork was not in the Respondent's employ. 12 Bjork's nicknames were "Dynamite" and "Peppy." 13 Crowe's testimony is in substantial accord with that of Bjork, except that he placed' her discharge at the time clock rather than his office . He testified that "I told her we- were discharging her on account of talking and yelling and I was going to get production, out or that department over there." STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 157 Employee Jean Craven, a witness for the General Counsel and a teammate of Bjork, testified that Bjork talked no more at work than the other employees of the sun ray department, talked in an average voice to the girls working at her table, sometimes conversed with employees on the opposite side of the work table, but never shouted or talked with employees at other tables in the department. Employee Mary Smith, who was also a witness for the General Counsel and who worked in the sun ray department at a table nearby that of Bjork, testified that "once in a while, not very often, Bjork talked to her but never shouted. Kathryn Nichols, a witness for the Respondent and also a teammate of Bjork, testified that Bjork was a good worker, talked more than the other employees of the department, and possessed a loud voice which could be heard for con- siderable distance.11 There was no rule prohibiting employees of the sun ray department from talking during working hours and with but few exceptions, all witnesses agreed that a convivial atmosphere prevailed among the employees of the sun ray department; they talked and jested among themselves and with their foreman during working hours.15 Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that during working hours Bjork did in fact talk to fellow employees, both those on her side of the table and those opposite her, and that on occasion she talked to employees at other tables. To have done this she undoubtedly at times talked in a louder than average tone of voice. However, the undersigned cannot credit the Respondent's contentions that Bjork was discharged because of her conversational propensities; rather, the undersigned is persuaded that the motivation for Bjork's discharge was due to her activities and membership in the Union and the Respondent's opposition thereto. These conclusions are based upon several reasons. (1) Although Bjork was allegedly discharged for talking at work, it is clear that there was no rule prohibiting employees from conversing while they worked and that other em- ployees chatted and jested among themselves and with their foreman at work. Moreover, Bjork was never warned individually about talking at work, until immediately before her discharge at a time when the Respondent had decided to terminate her employment. (2) Notwithstanding the fact that the operations of the sun ray department were hazardous, there is no showing by the Respondent that Bjork's talking caused any accidents in the department. In fact, the period of high accident rate in the department occurred prior to Bjork's reemployment by the Respondent on June 24, 1946. (3) As found heretofore, prior to Bjork's discharge, the Respondent had by various acts interfered with the organizational activities of its employees, indicating its opposition to the Union, and Bjork's union sympathies were known to President Lewis for she had advocated at the March 5 meeting that the vote be deferred in order to enable employees to attend a union meeting and acquaint themselves with the purposes of self-organization. The testimony of Assistant Superintendent Beebe, viewed in the light of the Respondent's opposition to the Union and knowledge of Bjork's union sympathies, establishes the real motivation for the discharge of Bjork. Both he and Crowe 14 Wickline, who worked in the sun ray department , also testified that Bjork talked from table to table in a loud voice, talked more than the other girls, and by such conversations kept "the other girls from working and she didn't work herself:" According to Wick- line, Foreman George frequently warned Bjork not to talk. As heretofore noted, Wick- line did not impress the undersigned as an accurate witness and her testimony on other issues has been rejected. For those considerations, as well as the fact that Wickline dis- agreed with other witnesses as to Bjork's production, the undersigned does not credit her tesitmony as to Bjork. 15 This finding does not imply that they engaged in censorable conduct. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were aware of Bjork's union membership and activities and Crowe stated in respect to the union adherents, "We will watch them and the first mis-move, that is it ... that was the pay-off." 16 Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes that Bjork's talking at work was seized upon by the Respondent as a pretext for her discharge and that the real motive for the termination of her employment was her activities and membership in the Union and the Respondent's opposition thereto. In view of these circumstances, the undersigned finds that Bjork was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, because of her membership in, and activi- ties on behalf of, the Union and that by thus discriminating against Bjork, the Respondent has discouraged. membership in the Union and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act. F. The discriminatory discharge of Annabel Breeze Annabel Breeze commenced her employment with the Respondent on September 4, 1945, in the sun ray department. Six months later she transferred to the press room, where she operated various types of small punch presses. She attended the first meeting of the Union at Walled Lake on March 4, 1947. At the meeting of employees in the Respondent's cafeteria on March 5, 1947, she openly espoused the Union by saying, according to her credible testimony, "We wouldn't need a Union . . . if he [President Lewis] would give us our seniority rights," and by launching a discussion of the administration of the Respondent's automatic wage increase policy. Breeze testified that at the Walled Lake meeting of the Union, it had been decided to hold the next meeting at her home. She further testified credibly that on March 5, Superintendent Crowe and Assistant Superintendent Beebe asked her whether the next meeting was going to be at her home, and that she answered in the negative." On March 13, 1947, Breeze was operating a small punch press, which formed brackets for the handles on coffee percolators. In this operation, with her left hand she dipped in a compound solution the blanks to be formed into brackets, usually 10 at a time. Then, using tongs held in her right hand, she inserted a blank in the press and tripped a lever with her foot, thereby caus- ing the press to close automatically and form the bracket. As the press opened, she removed the bracket with the tongs and then inserted another blank. Ac- cording to her uncontroverted testimony, the production rate for this job was 400 brackets an hour. On March 13, 1947, she inadvertently inserted two blanks into the press at one time, causing the press to become locked. When Diesetter Kenneth Leonard 11 The conflict in reasons given for Bjork's discharge , inherent in Crowe's and President Lewis' testimony , also casts doubt as to the Respondent's motivation in terminating Bjork's employment. Thus, Preisdent Lewis testified that the sole reason for her discharge was that Bjork' s talking constituted an accident hazard. However, when Crowe discharged Bjork , he ascribed as the reason , according to her testimony , "There is too much talking and not enough work going on in the Sun Ray Department ." Crowe testified that Bjork was discharged because she "was interfering with other people getting production ; it was hazardous over there." 14 Crowe testified that he never had any conversation with Breeze with respect to her union activities and never interrogated her as to the identity of employees attending union meetings. Beebe was not questioned in respect to this conversation. For the reason heretofore mentioned , the undersigned does not credit Crowe's testimony in this regard. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 159 opened the press, the top and bottom dies were found locked together. The -dies were pried apart and it was discovered that the top die was damaged, having been "split open" or cracked, with injury to other portions of the die. Thereupon, Assistant Superintendent Beebe summarily discharged Breeze's The Respondent contends that the discharge of Breeze was not violative of the Act, because as stated in the Respondent's answer, Breeze "was discharged for cause for the reason that through wanton and gross negligence, she caused expensive damage to be done to certain machinery of the employer and said rule of discharge for such conduct has been uniformly applied by Respondent." At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent admitted that "there is no question about the quality of her work at any point." As to the first grounds for the discharge, namely "expensive damage" to equipment, it is clear that the die was not irreparably damaged by Breeze but was put back in service the next day, after employees of the tool and (lie room repaired it. As to whether the Respondent had a rule of discharge for such action as was taken by Breeze and whether such a rule was uniformly applied by the Respondent, the testimony of the witnesses is in decided conflict. There is no convincing evidence of specific instances, prior to the Breeze incident, where employees broke dies without being discharged,"D However, employees Davis, Breeze, and Berg, all of whom operated at various times similar small punch presses, testified that it was not uncommon for a press operator to insert two blanks into a punch press, presumably without injury to the dies or presses. Their testimony was controverted by that of Diesetter Leonard and Superintendent Crowe and is irreconcilable with the established facts in 18 Breeze contended that the die was not broken but was scratched and could have easily been reconditioned. She testified that in the discussion between herself , Assistant Super- intendent Beebe, and Diesetter Leonard, which ensued immediately after the die was removed from the press and opened, Leonard said, "The die isn't broken, Mr. Beebe," but Beebe replied, "Kenny, I said the die is broken," and then Leonard then said, Okay, the die is broken." Employee Eva Dixon corroborated the testimony of Breeze , stating that she had overheard the conversation. However, employee Marian Urick, who was a production clerk for Beebe and who was a witness for the General Counsel, testified that she wrote the discharge slip for Breeze and overheard a conversation between Leonard and Beebe, wherein "Kenny [Leonard] told Mr. Beebe that the die was broke, and Mr. Beebe said the die was broke they got her out of there; that she had to get out of there before lunch.. He did not want that machine touched or used until Annabel left." Leonard specifically denied the testimony of Breeze and Dixon , and Beebe insisted that the die was broken, although he was not questioned in detail as to the incident. Crowe and Lewis also testified that the die was broken in the manner described in the text above. George A. Hendrian, assistant superintendent in charge of the tool and die department, gave detailed and convincing testimony in respect to the dies in question. Upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit the testimony of Breeze and Dixon in respect to the die-breaking incident but finds that the die was damaged in the manner related above. 19 Employee Davis testified that employee Wanda Brown informed her in 1946 that she caught a pair of tongs in a press and broke a die and that Brown was not discharged. Brown did not testify. Crowe denied that Brown ever broke a die. The under- signed does not credit this testimony of Davis nor the hearsay testimony of Breeze that she was told that a die on one of the large presses was broken on March 13. Hazel Berg, employed in the sun ray department from 1945 to March 1946 and resident at the time of the hearing at the home of Breeze, testified that occasionally she worked in the press room and that in January 1946 , her foreman complained that she had broken a die and run scrap for half a day but she was not discharged or reprimanded. However, she was never assigned to press work thereafter. Foreman William Kelly denied that Berg broke a die but stated that on one occasion the die became worn but Berg did not notice the imperfection and ran scrap . Upon the entire record and his observation of the wit- nesses, the undersigned credits Kelly's testimony. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respect to the operation of the presses. That is, on small presses, such as were operated by these employees, the close adjustment of the dies allowed for clearance of only one piece of stock to be pressed . Unlike the larger presses, the smaller variety rarely stalled when the pressing mechanism was once started and if two pieces of stock were inserted in the smaller presses, the machine would complete the operation, causing damage either to the dies or to the press itself. In other words, either the dies or the press must give way to accom- modate the thickness of the extra piece of stock. Richard Julleff, foreman of a press room of another employer and called by the General Counsel as an expert witness, testified that in using "doped pieces," that is stock dipped in compound, a pressed article might stick to the top of the die and the operator would inadvertently insert another piece of stock, causing damage to the die. Julleff testified that as a result of inserting two pieces of stock in the press "sometimes you bust your die and sometimes you scorch them, you have to polish them down and use them over again . . . sometimes you break them beyond repair and you have to make a new one. Sometimes they just crack, you take them up and send them to the tool and die and weld them and polish them up and then send them back and put them in and get them ready for operation again." According to Julleff, this might occur to an experienced operator three or four times a year and with a production rate of 350 or 400 pieces per hour, "where you are working in compound, stuff like that, you are bound to stick them, you can't get away from it." Julleff was an impressive witness with no personal interest in the proceeding. His testimony is credited. Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that on occasion experienced punch press operators inadvertently inserted two pieces of stock in their presses with resulting injury to the dies: ° The record does not reveal that employees were discharged for such incidents prior to the discharge of Breeze 21 Although there may be some valid justification for Breeze's discharge, the undersigned is convinced that the reason relied upon by the Respondent, namely the damage to the die, was merely a pretext to conceal its illegal motivation for her discharge. As mentioned previously, Breeze was an early and active ad- herent of the Union, attending the first meetings, at which the occurrences and names of those in attendance were reported to the Respondent. Moreover, she openly expressed her union sympathies at the meeting conducted by President Lewis on March 5. Finally, as set forth above, Beebe's testimony is an admission that Breeze's discharge was discriminatorily motivated. He and Crowe discussed the fact that Breeze, among other employees, was active in the Union and Crowe told Beebe, "We will watch them and the first mis-move, that is it." In view of these admissions, it is clear that the damage to the die by Breeze was the "mis-move" Beebe and Crowe were awaiting and, seizing upon that incident, they discharged her in order. to discourage. membership in the Union and the progress of its organizational campaign." The undersigned concludes and finds 20 From his observation of the witnesses and for reasons previously stated, the testimony of Leonard and Crowe to the contrary is not credited. 21 Crowe testified that subsequent to the dismissal of Breeze , another employee was discharged for damaging a die but he was unable to recall the name of the employee. The Respondent did not introduce any records or other evidence with respect to the employee referred to by Crowe. This testimony is not credited. 22 In reaching this conclusion , the undersigned has not credited Breeze's testimony that after her discharge , around 11 a. in. on March 13, the Respondent did not offer her trans- portation from the plant , located in the country , to her home. Personnel Manager Mack testified that when employees were discharged or called home during • working hours, the STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 161 that Breeze was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, because of her membership in the Union and that by thus discriminating against Breeze and by interrogating her in respect to the meeting place of the Union, the Respondent has discouraged membership in the Union and interfered with, restrained , and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act: 3 G. Further interference, restraint, and coercion On March 13, 1947, the Union held a meeting, which employee Eva Dixon attended . She testified credibly that the next morning she had the following conversation with Superintendent Crowe: He said, "How did you like the Union meeting last night?" I said, "Fine." He said, "Eva , you shouldn't be going to those places," and I said, that I felt that when I punched out, I would go where I pleased and do what I pleased. He said, "You are being disloyal to Mr. Lewis, as the Union was voted out." I said, "Not me, I voted for it." . . . He asked me, . . "Eva do you mind telling me who all was there last night?" I said, "No, Mr. Crowe, I can't tell you that." He said, "Why not?" I said, "Well, you know that I was there, you ought to know who else was there." He said, "Do you know that people hold their jobs longer that keep the Company informed of what goes on in the plant? . . . he said that I had been there a long time, and that I was an excellent worker and that he hated to see me go, but if I kept on with this Union business , he would have to let me go. I told him that he could fire me or lay me off or do any- thing he wished, I was still Union 2{ Later in the morning, Assistant Superintendent Beebe asked Dixon, according to her credible testimony, "Did you have a good time at the meeting last night?" Dixon replied, "You should have been there." Whereupon Beebe countered, "I would like to have been, but I had to work late." 25 Dixon further testified that about 11 a. m. on the same morning she had the following conversation with Personnel Manager Maude Mack in the rest room in the presence of employee Loretta Keller and other girls : Respondent customarily furnished them transportation , that she asked Breeze whether she had any transportation home, and that Breeze replied that if she might use the telephone, a relative would come to the plant and meet her . According to Mack , Breeze used the tele- phone in another office and then left without saying more about transportation . The record reveals that Breeze remained at the plant during the lunch period and she admitted that she was deeply. disturbed over her discharge . In view of these circumstances , as well as the fact that Mack was a most impressive witness, the undersigned credits Mack's testi- mony in this regard. 23 Cf. Sunnyside Winery, 77 NLRB 93 ; Super-Cold Southwest Company, 81 NLRB 96. 21 Crowe did not specifically deny the testimony of Dixon in this regard but denied generally that he ever questioned employees about their attendance at union meetings or tried to find out the identity of employees attending union meetings. From his observa- tion of the witnesses and for the reasons previously stated, the undersigned does not deem Crowe's denials worthy of credence . Dixon 's testimony is credited on this issue. 25 Beebe did not specifically deny the remarks attributed to him by Dixon but denied that he ever asked employees if they attended union meetings. However, he admitted that he inquired of employees Haney and Wickline as to the identity of employees in attendance at union meetings . Upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses , the under- signed does not credit the general denial of Beebe but finds that he made the inquiries as testified to by Dixon. 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Mack] said, ,you are one of the girls that is mixed up in this Union business." I said, "Why, yes, I am, it's a swell business to be in." She said, "Eva, you shouldn't do that, you are being disloyal to Mr. Lewis," and she says, "Believe me, it will only cause you trouble and you will get nowhere." Mack specifically denied making the statements attributed to her by Dixon. Keller testified that she never heard Mack make the statements attributed to her by Dixon or question any employee about his union activities or accuse any employee of belonging to the Union. Mary Walters, matron of the rest room, testified that she never observed Mack converse with Dixon in the rest room and never heard Mack admonish Dixon, or any one, about the Union. As stated elsewhere, Mack appeared to be a sincere and truthful witness, as did Walters. Although the undersigned has credited some of Dixon's testimony, he has found other portions to be unworthy of credence. From his impression of the wit- nesses and the fact that Mack's denials are supported by the testimony of Wal- ters and Keller, the undersigned credits Mack's testimony and finds that she did not make the statements attributed to her by Dixon. Employee Dorothy Sawyer also attended the union meeting on the evening of March 13, 1946. The next morning, she had a conversation with her foreman, William Kelly. Among other things, Kelly asked her if she had attended the meeting the night before. 21 Later the same afternoon, Foreman Paul Lewis asked her, "How the meeting was last night." Sawyer feigned ignorance of any meeting. As she was punching her time card at the close of the work day, Paul Lewis told her that "he was sorry that he accused me of attending" the meeting. Sawyer replied, "I am sorry I lied to you, because I did." They talked for 15 or 20 minutes, arguing about the Union-how Sawyer "felt about it and how he felt about it . . . he believed,there shouldn't be a Union out there." " On the morning of March 14, 1947, employee Egbert Mersino was instructed by his foreman, William Kelly, to report to President Lewis' office zb Mersino complied with the order and testified credibly that he had the following conversa- tion with Lewis : Lewis stated that in a previous conversation Mersino had promised to cease his union activity. Mersino denied that he had ever made such a commitment and Lewis insisted that Mersino had done S0.2' Lewis asked Mersino how long he intended to work for the Respondent. Mersino replied, 16 Kelly denied that he ever inquired of employees as to their union activities or their attendance of union meetings . Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witness, the undersigned does not credit Kelly's denials . Sawyer was an especially forth- right witness. n The findings in this paragraph rest upon the testimony of Sawyer. The quotations are from her testimony . Paul Lewis admitted that the conversation occurred sub- stantially as testified to by Sawyer. 21 Mersino placed this conversation as occurring between March 13 and 17, 1947. How- ever, the undenied and credible testimony of employee Sawyer, set forth in the margin below, established the date of the conversation as occurring on March 14, the date on which several employees were questioned by various supervisors in respect to their union activities . The undersigned finds that Lewis summoned Mersino to Lewis' office on March 14, 1947. 29 Apparently the conversation referred to was that which Mersino testified occurred on March 6, the day after the meeting of employees in the cafeteria . In that conversation, Lewis asked Mersino, according to the latter's credible and undenied testimony, how he "thought the meeting had come out." Mersino replied that "[he] had found out some things that [ lie] was glad to find out." STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 163 "Ten years if I lived that long." Lewis then said that as long as Mersino "worked at Stainless Ware Company of America there would be a personal fight between them." Lewis inquired why Mersino was interested in organizing the employees. Mersino replied that one reason was that the ventilating system in the plant was defective. The matter was considered and Maintenance Fore- man Sid Parsons was called in to discuss the question. After the maintenance foreman left, Lewis again asked Mersino why he was active in the Union. Mersino replied that Lewis had previously stated that no employee would be discharged because of his union activities, yet on the two preceding days, em- ployees Bjork and Breeze had been discharged because of their union activities. Lewis denied that their concerted activities were the reason for the discharge of Bjork and Breeze and stated that they were discharged for legitimate reasons. The conversation concluded with Lewis saying, "Well, there isn't much more to be said, except that I will tell you this, some man in the plant threatened to split your head open with a spade." 30 Upon the foregoing, the undersigned finds that by the inquiries of Superin- tendent Crowe, Assistant Superintendent Beebe, Foreman Kelly, and President Lewis as to the union membership and activities of employees, by Crowe's threats and statements to the effect that Dixon's tenure of employment was endangered as long as she continued her concerted activities, and by President Lewis' statement to Mersino that Mersino was in danger of bodily harm, pre- sumably because of his union activities, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Wagner Act and the Act. 30 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the testimony of Mersino. Lewis stated that Mersino came on his own initiative to Lewis' office and that the following conversation ensued : Well, Mr. Mersino come in and said they had a meeting in the restaurant and he said that nobody should be laid off for union activities, and I said, "Nobody has been laid off for union activities." Well, he said that we had. He mentioned two names at that time, of two people and I said, "I don't even know that those people even belonged to the union." . . . He said that one of the things . . . why we really want a union is because we thought the blower could be more efficient . . . Well , he said to call Sid Parsons in, so I called Sid in and asked him what was wrong, see, and Sid said he would check the blower and see if anything was wrong. I understood, at that time, that there was a broken belt or something, and Sid, he replaced the belt, or something. It wasn't running fast enough. Lewis specifically denied making the inquiries, threats, and statements attributed to him by Mersino. Mersino's testimony that he was ordered to report to Lewis' office was cor- roborated by employee Dorothy Sawyer, who worked under the supervision of Foreman Kelly and who testified, credibly and without contradiction, that she had the following conversation with Kelly on the morning of March 14: Well, he came up, I believe Mr. Lewis sent for Bert Mersino to come to his office, and it was shortly after that Kelly came up to me in a round about way, he said, "Pretty soft for some people." I said, "What do you mean , Kelly?" And he said. "Your boyfriend is over in the office." I said, "Who do you mean?" I said, "Oh, Bert?" Upon the undersigned's consideration of the entire record, his observation of the wit- nesses, and the reasons previously set forth in resolving other conflicts between the testi- mony of Lewis and Mersino, the undersigned finds that the conversation occurred in ac- cordance with Mersino's testimony, corroborated in' part by Sawyer, that Lewis made the statements attributed to him by Mersino, and that Lewis' testimony and denials are unworthy of credence. 877359-50-vol. 87-12 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. The lay-off of employees in April 1947 1. General considerations At the beginning of April 1947, the Respondent employed 173 nonsupervisory ,employees in the kitchen utensil division . Throughout the history of the Re- spondent 's operations, the kitchen utensil division had been subdivided among 5 departments and the seniority rights of employees was division -wide rather than departmental . On April 4, 1947, President Lewis assembled the employees and announced that the kitchen utensil division had been reorganized into 22 departments , that seniority would thereafter be on a departmental basis, and that a number of employees would be laid off that day . He also announced that inasmuch as there had been considerable interchange of employees among the various departments in the past, employees caught in the lay-off with 30 days' seniority in other departments could compete with the employees of those depart- ments for jobs. Among the 34 employees laid off on April 4, 1947 , were complainants Mersino, Sawyer, Cooper , Gregor, Janka , and Lawrence . On April 8 , 1947, 7 more employees , including complainant Davis, were laid off. An additional four were laid off on April 9, 1947, and on the next day 7 more employees, including com- plainant Dixon, were laid off. On April 23, 1947, 3 employees were laid off. All told, 55 employees of the kitchen utensil division were laid off in April 1947.31 The General Counsel contends that the inclusion of the 8 complainants, above named, in the lay-off was discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, insisting that the Respondent reorganized the kitchen utensil division into 22 departments and changed its seniority policy so as to have reason to lay off the complainants. The Respondent , on the other hand, avers that the lay -off, the reorganization of the departments , and the change in seniority policy were made in the interests of economy and efficiency. It is clear that the reduction in force in April 1947, was necessitated by the economic situation confronting the Respondent and requiring a retrenchment of its operations . The sales of the Respondent's products had fallen from a total of $456 ,008 in June 1946, to $180,602 in February 1947. In March 1947, the total sales decreased to $171,810 . These figures reflected a decrease in the sales of the products of the kitchen utensil division . As part of its retrenchment program, the Respondent had abandoned its night shift in January , with the exception of a skeleton crew for maintenance and emergency work. However, its business did not improve and by March it was apparent from the decrease in sales and in orders that a further reduction in force would be necessary. In early April, the Respondent determined to make an extensive lay-off of employees. The undersigned concludes and finds that the lay-off of employees in April was due to the economic conditions affecting the Respondent 's business and was not inspired by the Respondent's antipathy to the Union .12 A number of office employees were also laid off at this time. 3a This finding as to the Respondent's bona fides in respect to the reason for the lay-off of April 1947 is buttressed by the fact that the Respondent 's sales continued to decline in 1947 and 1.948, reaching a low of $64,780 in April 1948, rising somewhat thereafter, but sinking to $81, 529 in October 1948 . Further reductions in personnel were made after the April 1947 lay-off. At the time of the hearing, the kitchen utensil division employed' approximately 65 employees. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 165 Turning to the question of the reorganization of the kitchen utensil division and the change in seniority policy, the testimony with respect thereto is in the main uncontroverted. Prior to April 1947, the Respondent had frequently trans- ferred employees from one department to -another. Some transfers were per- manent, others were on a temporary basis, due to lack of work in certain departments. On February 1, 1946, the Respondent was incorporated and a new accounting system was inaugurated. At that time, Jerome Kotts, the Respondent's ac- countant, suggested a revision of the departments of the kitchen utensil division in order to stabilize the labor costs. Later in 1946, in conferences among the Respondent's managerial personnel, the matter was discussed. In September 1946, studies of efficiency of plant operations were made, determining the labor cost of production. Of the total cost of production, the labor costs had risen from 8 to 12 percent. In December 1946, it was determined to further depart- mentalize the kitchen utensil division, to cease the practice of transferring employees among the departments, and to establish a departmental seniority system. The purpose of the changes was to increase the efficiency of employees in their tasks by confining their work to narrower ranges in more clearly defined departments and to obviate the cost of training employees to new tasks when transfers were made. ' Accordingly, in December 1946, William G. Watkins, a timekeeper for the Respondent, commenced a study of the personnel records of employees in order to set up a list of employees, assigned to one of the 22 departments where they had performed the most work. Once assigned to a department, an employee was credited with his seniority gained in that department. When the night shift was laid off in January 1947, the new system had not been perfected and the lay-off followed the original seniority plan on a division-wide basis. In March 1947, Watkins completed his work, having made a study of personnel records and assigned employees to one of the 22 departments. The reorganiza- tion of the departments of the kitchen utensil division and the new departmental seniority system was announced and followed in the April reductions in force. Employees were informed that if they were laid off but had 30 days' experience in another department, they might compete with the employees of the other department for jobs on the basis of their full seniority. Employees were also advised that if they had any question as to the accuracy of their seniority rating under the new plan, they might consult the personnel records and officials. A few employees complained that error had been made ; in some cases, it was found that a mistake had been made and the employees were not laid off. Others with 30 days' experience in other departments were able to "bump" employees in such departments. An examination of the records introduced into 'evidence with respect to the lay-off by departments reveals that there was no serious deviation from the seniority lists among the employees laid off, except in one department. In the buff hand department, eight employees were laid off, among them com- plainants Janka, Sawyer, and Cooper. Four employees remained in the de- partment after the reduction in force. As to two of these, H. G. Martin and James Drury, the record shows that their seniority commenced on February 17 and March 3, 1947, respectively. The employees laid off had more seniority ,in the department than Martin and Drury. The record contains no explana- tion for the retention of these two employees. However, if the seniority plan had been, followed in this department by including Martin and Drury in the lay- 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD off, nevertheless, the complainants would have been among those laid off. In view of this fact, the undersigned finds that the retention of Martin and Drury does not establish that the lay-off of complainants Janka, Sawyer, and Cooper was discriminatory. Another reason, advanced by the Respondent's supervisors, for the reorgani- zation of the kitchen utensil division and the change to departmental seniority was that thereby the Respondent was able to reduce its force to a minimum and yet turn out production with experienced employees remaining in each department. It is contended by the Respondent that had the earlier system of division-wide seniority been followed, certain departments would have been deprived of nearly all experienced employees, while in other departments vir- tually no reduction in the number of employees would have been effected. As a result of the use of the division-wide system of seniority, it would have been necessary to transfer employees from departments where they had ex- perience to departments in which they had no training, with a consequent in- crease in labor cost to the Respondent for the training period in the new jobs 83 The records of the Respondent introduced, in evidence tend to support testimony of the Respondent's supervisors as to • these contentions" Such testimony is credited. In support of his contentions, the General Counsel relies upon the testimony of Assistant Superintendent Beebe that he and Crowe realized that certain of the complainants were active in the Union and discussed the fact that when the reduction in force was made under the new seniority and departmental sys- tem, many of the Union adherents would be laid off.35 Although Beebe's testi- mony on this issue is not particularly lucid and in considerable measure was elicited by leading questions, the undersigned construes Beebe's testimony to mean that he and Crowe expressed opinions, possibly of gratification, that the reduction in force under the new system `would result in the lay-off of several union adherents. Beebe's testimony does not establish, in the under- signed's opinion, that the change in seniority and departmental policies was made because of the Respondent's desire to have reason to rid itself of union adherents. The General Counsel also points to the number of employees transferred from one department to-another prior to the April lay-off and urges that the Re- spondent's "contention that they were placed in twenty-two departments because it was expensive to shift employees from one place to another is not borne out by the practice which the Company engaged in." The undersigned is not per- 33 To train an employee for a job cost the Respondent between $250 and $350. 34 Inasmuch as the seniority list on a division-wide basis was not introduced into evi- dence, it is impossible to verify this testimony with absolute accuracy. However, the undersigned , in studying the record , has made a recapitulation of the departmental seniority lists and ranked the employees in the order of their seniority given in such lists without regard to departments. Such a recapitulation approaches a division -wide seniority list, although doubtless there are some inaccuracies inasmuch as the list introduced into evidence credited employees with seniority gained in the department to which they were assigned and, in some instances , did not credit seniority gained by work in other departments. The deduction of the total employees laid off from the recapitulated seniority list supports the contentions of, and testimony adduced by , the Respondent , related in the text above. Thus, according to the undersigned's study, only 3 experienced employees would have remained in the sun ray department , whereas the Respondent desired to retain 8 em- ployees in this department. On the other hand, under the recapitulated list, only 2 lay-offs would have resulted in the large presses department , leaving a staff of 10 employees. There was work for only 5 employees in this department after the lay-offs. 35 For reasons heretofore mentioned , the undersigned credits Beebe's testimony in this regard and finds the denials of Crowe unworthy of credence. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 167 euaded by the General Counsel's argument. Admittedly, there was consider- able interchange of employees among the various departments prior to the April lay-off. The record shows that subsequent to the lay-off, the interchange of employees lessened substantially. Although the timing of the Respondent's change in policy raises some question as to the Respondent's motivation, yet it must be noted that provision was made in the lay-off policy to eliminate as much as possible any inequities arising from the permanent assignment of employees to departments and the change in departments and seniority. Namely, that employees laid off in one department having 30 days' seniority in an- other department were permitted to compete for jobs in the second department on the basis of their entire seniority. The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the economic factors set forth above were prevailing in the Re- spondent's determination to change its policies. For the same reason, the under- signed finds that the reorganization of the kitchen utensil division into 22 de- partments and the change in seniority system by the Respondent were not illegally motivated. 2. Specific considerations as to complainants a. Dorothy Gregor There remains for consideration testimony of some complainants adduced by the General Counsel to show an illegal motivation on the part of the Respond- ent in choosing them to be laid off. Thus, Dorothy Gregor, employed in the large presses department, testified that she had not been active in the Union, having attended only one meeting in mid-March 1947. She further testified that after Lewis made the general announcement about the pending lay-offs on April 4, she asked Assistant Superintendent Beebe for permission to leave work at noon so that she might attend Good Friday services at her church and also asked'if she were to be laid off. According to Gregor, he replied, "If they haven't told you now, you are not laid off." Immediately following this con- versation, she signed an application for membership in the Union in the view of Mary Walters, matron of the rest room 39 Thereupon she left the plant and went home to find a telegram from Personnel Manager Mack, requesting Gregor not to report to work until further notice. Walters testified that she never reported to Mack conversations of the girls in the rest room. Walters also denied watching girls sign union cards in the rest room and stated that she did not remember seeing a union card in the rest room. She denied knowing Gregor, or Janka, whose testimony will next be considered. Mack denied that she ever sought to gather information about union activities of employees and testified that the reason Gregor was sent the telegraphic notice of her laff-off was that on rechecking the seniority lists, the Respondent's supervisors found that additional employees should be laid off and such employees were notified as soon as possible. According to Mack, Gregor, who worked on the day shift, and two employees on the night shift were notified by telegram that they were laid off. s° Employee Marian Urick testified that she induced Gregor to sign the union application card. She further testified , " She and I were in the corner, off in the corner , although the test room was full of girls but the Matron [Mary Walters] seemed to be very interested, and came over to see what we were doing . . . . She said, 'Oh , you are doing that too.' " Gregor did not testify that Walters made such a remark . In view of Walters' testimony set forth hereinafter in the text above, the undersigned does not credit Urick 's testimony in this regard. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gregor testified that she was employed by the Respondent in the sun ray department in February 1946 and soon transferred to the large presses de- partment. The seniority lists for that department assigned her seniority in. that department commencing on March 5, 1946. She had the least seniority of the employees in that department. On April 8, 1947, five other employees of her department were laid off and another was laid off on April 10, 1947. Mack and Walters were among the most impressive of the Respondent' s witnesses. From his observation of the witnesses, and in view of the fact that Gregor had the least seniority in her department and that additional employees of' that department were also laid off in accordance with their seniority ratings,. the undersigned credits the testimony of Mack and Walters and finds that the Respondent did not choose Gregor for lay-off because of her union membership or activities. b. Marie Janica Marie Janka testified that she was employed by the Respondent in the buffing. department in February 1946 and continued to work thereafter in that depart- ment. The seniority list for the buff hand department gave her seniority as. commencing on February 25, 1946. Janka testified that she attended a union meeting in mid-March 1947 and signed a union application for membership in the rest room on April 3 , 1946, in the presence of Matron Mary Walters, who asked, "Are you going to sign one of them?" On April 4, 1947, when Janka. asker her foreman, William Kelly, for leave to attend Good Friday services: that afternoon , he informed her that she was laid off. Walters' testimony has been previously set forth and is credited . It is found that she did not make, the statement attributed to her by Janka . According to the seniority list for the buff hand department , Janka was third from the bottom in length of service, with the Respondent . Eight employees were laid off on April 4, 1947. In, view of this fact as well as the credible testimony of Walters , the undersigned finds that Janka 's union membership and activities were not the determining, factors in the Respondent 's decision to lay her off. c. Dorothy Saw jjcr, Neva Cooper, Virginia Lawrence, and Egbert Mersino Dorothy Sawyer entered the Respondent's employ on August 8, 1945, and was credited with seniority as of that date in the buff hand department. Neva Cooper's seniority in the same department dated from July 10, 1945, the date of her hiring by the Respondent. Virginia Lawrence commenced her employ- ment on August 2, 1945, and her seniority in the grind hand department began, on that date. Egbert Mersino was employed by the Respondent on November 6, 1946, and was given that seniority in the grind acme department. These four complainants were laid off on April 4, 1947." All were members of the Union, had attended union meetings, and had participated in various ways in the organizational campaign. In view of the Respondent's surveillance of the union meetings and interrogation of some of these employees, it is clear that. their membership was known to the Respondent. Although the Respondent. engaged in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion as to some of these 37 Mersino testified that he entered the Respondent's employ on or about November 16,. 1946, and was laid off on April 7, 1947. The records of the Respondent with respect to the seniority of all employees under the new departmental system credit Mersino with: seniority in his department commencing on November 6, 1946, and show that he was laid off on April 4, 1947. The undersigned does not credit Mersino's testimony in this regard.. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 169 employees, particularly Mersino,a the month before the April lay-off, their inclusion in the reduction in force appears, so far as the record shows, to have been upon the basis of their seniority in their respective departments a9 The undersigned is not persuaded that the controlling factors motivating the Re- spondent in laying them off was other than economic in nature.'0 d. Doris Davis Doris Davis testified that she commenced her employment with the Respondent on August 13, 1945, in the press department, joined the Union and attended several meetings in March 1946, solicited union memberships, and participated in a union demonstration or rally in front of the plant on the afternoon of April 4, 1947. That afternoon, several employees who had obtained leave to attend Good Friday services returned to the plant as the first shift was being dismissed and distributed union cards at the plant gate. Admittedly, these activities were observed by several of the Respondent's supervisors from an office on the upper floor of the plant. The seniority list for the small presses department listed Davis with seniority commencing on August 13, 1945. On April 8, 1947, she and another employee were laid off. Employee F. L. Wright had 8 days' less seniority than Davis, but was retained. However, on April 23, 1947, Wright was laid off. Although the seniority system was not strictly followed in this instance, the undersigned finds no convincing evidence that Davis' lay-off was illegally motivated. e. Eva Dixon Complainant Eva Dixon testified that she entered the Respondent's employ on February 10, 1945. She joined the Union on March 13, 1947. In March 1947, as previously found, she was interrogated with respect to her union activities by Superintendent Crowe, Assistant Superintendent Beebe, and Foreman Kelly. On the afternoon of April 4, 1947, she participated in the union rally at the plant gate, as previously described. The demonstration was witnessed by various supervisors of the Respondent, including Crowe, Beebe, Kemp, and Mack. Ac- cording to Dixon, the following incident occurred : I was standing out in the road, signing people up in the Union and I heard my name called and I looked around and Mr. Crowe said, "Come here." He was in the window, the window was open, and he was looking out. I didn't 88 As hereinafter found in the text, Crowe told Foreman Paul Lewis that Mersino was one of the employees Crowe "would have to get .. . out of the shop." This testimony casts serious doubts as to the legality of the Respondent's motivation in selecting Mersino for lay-off. Although the matter is not free from doubt , the undersigned is of the opinion that the economic factors necessitating the lay-off out-weigh Crowe's antiunion animus. 88 As previously mentioned , the records of the Respondent show that two employees with less seniority than Cooper and Lawrence in the hand grind department were retained, but the undersigned has previously found that such deviation from the strict seniority ratings was not discriminatory to Cooper and Lawrence , inasmuch as they would have been included among the 8 employees laid off in their department even if the seniority listing had been adhered to. 40 In making these findings as to Neva Cooper and as to other issues in the case , the under- signed has not considered the testimony of Leslie B. Turner, at various times a foreman and employee of the Respondent , for the reason that Turner 's testimony on cross-examina- tion by the Respondent was at variance with an affidavit given by Turner to Mack on July 8, 1947 , in respect to the Respondent 's no-solicitation rule thereby casting doubt' as to the accuracy of his testimony . Nor has the hearsay testimony of Neva Cooper and Cledith Cooper, elicited as corroborative of Leslie Turner's testimony, been considered. 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pay him no attention, and I kept on, and pretty soon Mr. Beebe says, "Come here, Eva," and I said, "No, you come out here," and he said, "What have you got out there?" I said, "We are passing out Union cards and books," I said, "They are free, today, come on out and they won't cost you a penny." Crowe and Beebe specifically denied Dixon's testimony in this regard. Per- sonnel Manager Mack and General Manager Kemp testified that they observed the demonstration from the upper floor of the plant but did not hear anyone call from the plant to Dixon as testified by the latter. None of Dixon's fellow par- ticipants in the incident was questioned with respect to the conversation between her and Beebe or between her and Crowe, although some were witnesses for the General Counsel; her testimony is thus uncorroborated. As mentioned previ- ously, Mack impressed the undersigned as a reliable witness. Kemp was also a sincere witness, as was Beebe. Although the undersigned has credited portions of Dixon's testimony with respect to other incidents, he has found other portions unworthy of credence. The same has resulted from the weighing of Crowe's testimony as to other incidents. The undersigned is persuaded, upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses, that Dixon's testimony is not entitled to credence in regard to this event. The denials of Crowe and Beebe, as corrob- orated by Mack and Kemp, are credited. Dixon also testified that she received permission to leave the plant at mid-day on April 4, 1947, Good Friday, and that before leaving, she gave union application cards to employees Muriel Ross and Jo Wagner who signed them in the rest room in the presence of Matron Walters. Dixon testified that on the following Mon- day, April 7, 1947, she had the following conversation with Superintendent Crowe : [Crowe] said, "Eva, I warned you for the last tinge to quit signing people up for this Union, on Company premises." And, I said, "Have I been signing anybody up?" He said, "You sure did." I said, "How do you know?" He said, "Only Friday you signed two girls up in the rest room." . . . then I said, "Did Mrs. Walters tell you?", and he said, "What do you think we pay the matron for in there to tell us what you girls do?" Crowe specifically denied Dixon's testimony. Walters, who at the time of the hearing was no longer in the Respondent's employ, testified that the Respondent's supervisors never questioned her as to the conversations of employees in the rest room or instructed her to question the employees about their union activities, and that she never reported any of the conversations to the Respondent. According to Walters, "There never was a thing said about a union, or anyone give me instructions to find out nothing concerning the Union, whatsoever." She also testified that she did not see Dixon "sign up" any employees in the Union on April 4, and that if she had observed such conduct she would not have reported it to the Respondent because "it was none of my business. I wasn't hired there for a spy." Of these three witnesses, Walters was the most impressive both as to her sincerity and as to her lack of interest in the outcome of the proceedings. From his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned finds Dixon's testimony unworthy of credence. Crowe's denials, corroborated by Walters, are credited.' 41 In resolving these conflicts in testimony , the undersigned has considered the fact, as previously found, that Wickline and Haney Informed the Respondent of the occurrences at, and those attending, union meetings . Such reporting , in a sense , adds credence to Dixon's testimony but is offset by the additional fact that there is no showing that Wickline and Haney were ordered to spy on the union meetings . Dixon's testimony was to the effect that Crowe stated that Walters was assigned the matron's job to act as an informant for the Respondent . The findings as to the termination of Geliske's employment, discussed above, have also been considered in respect to these issues. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 171 Dixon testified that she was laid off on April 10, 1947, and that prior to her notification of lay-off, she had the following conversation with President Lewis on April 10: The reason why I remember that day, there was a notice on the time clock that said we would bow our head for two minutes for prayer for Henry Ford, and at that time we would shut our machines off and Mr. Lewis took up approximately 10 minutes praying instead of two minutes. And he walked over to me and he said, "Well, little Eve, how do you feel today?" I said, "Okay, and you?" He said, "Well, Iam still living." And I said, "Well, Mr. Lewis, that is one thing you can be thankful for. Mr. Henry wouldn't say that after today." He wheeled on his heels and said to Steve [Foreman Arnold Stevenson], "We will let her go." She further testified that later that day she was informed of her lay-off by Foreman Stevenson in the following conversation : [Stevenson] walked over to me and he said, "Eva, I will have to let you go," and he pulled a slip out of his pocket and told me to go up to iIrs. Mack [the Respondent's personnel manager], and I asked him "How come?" He said, "That is the boss' orders." I asked him, "Well, how about me bumping somebody and going back to my seniority?" He said, "You can't do that." I said, "I know I can, because Mr. Lewis said we could." He said, "As of today, you are frozen to your jobs, and when you are frozen, if there is no work, you go home." Lewis testified that he conducted a brief memorial service at the plant after the death of Henry Ford and stated that he could not remember having a con- versation thereafter with Dixon. He specifically denied, however, that he ordered Foremen Stevenson to terminate Dixon's employment. Stevenson did not testify. Although Dixon was employed in February 1945, the seniority records used in the reorganization of the kitchen utensil division list her seniority in the small presses department as commencing on June 4, 1945. Two employees with less seniority than Dixon were laid off on April 8, 1947. Dixon was the third member of the department to be laid off. Thirteen days after Dixon's termination, em- ployee F. L. Wright, who had approximately 2i/., months' less seniority than Dixon, was laid off. Except for the retention of Wright for 2 weeks after Dixon's termination, the seniority list for Dixon's department was followed in determin- ing the order of lay-offs. In view of this fact, as well as his impression of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Lewis' testimony that he did not order Steven- son to discharge Dixon. Since Stevenson was not called as a witness, Dixon's testimony with respect to her conversation with him at the time she was notified of her lay-off was not specifically controverted. Inasmuch as Dixon testified that she was employed in February 1945 but the seniority records in the small presses department credit her for seniority in that department only since June 4, 1945, it may be that she had the right to "bump" employees in other departments, although the record does not clearly develop such facts. It is clear, however, that Lewis explained to employees that those who were laid off in one department, having 30 days' seniority in another department, would be entitled to compete for jobs in the second department. Several employees who received lay-off notices questioned the accuracy of the records and claimed "bumping" privileges and in some instances , it was found that their contentions were correct . Their lay-off notices 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were revoked and they bumped other employees . One of these employees who claimed "bumping" privileges was complainant Marian Urick , whose case is here- inafter considered . These facts cast doubt upon the accuracy of Dixon's testi- mony as to her conversation with Stevenson . However , the undersigned credits Dixon's undenied testimony but finds that if she had bumping rights in other departments-a fact that the record does not reveal-she did not pursue them. Apparently she made no avowal of her seniority rights in other departments to Personnel Manager Mack . From the handling of other cases involving bumping rights, one may infer that had Dixon such rights and she had pursued them, she would have been given a job in another department where she had experience and the requisite seniority . The undersigned finds no special circumstances showing that the Respondent was illegally motivated in selecting Dixon to be laid. off. 3. Conclusions In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds that the lay-off of Mersino, Sawyer, Cooper, Gregor, Janka, Lawrence, Davis, and Dixon in April 1947 by the Respondent was not violative of the Wagner Act or the Act.42 I. The discriminatory transfer and subsequent discharge of Marian Urick 1. The discriminatory transfer Urick commenced her employment with the Respondent in June 1945, working in a department which dried pans with sawdust. Two months later she trans- ferred to the polishing department, where she worked for about 14 months. Then she became production clerk for Assistant Superintendent Beebe. On this job, she kept daily records of production of the various departments of the kitchen utensil division, inventory records, records of job assignments and seniority of employees working under Beebe's jurisdiction, and made out sepa- ration slips for employees when their employment was terminated. Urick joined the Union early in March 1947. The first union meeting she attended was that held on March 13, 1947. The next clay at work, Beebe asked her if she "had had a good time at the union meeting." When she asked what was the source of his information, Beebe replied, according to the credible testi- mony of Urick, "Well, . . . a thing like that gets around" and further stated that "he could find out anything if he wanted to." " Urick testified credibly that on or about March 31, 1946, when she reported to work and "started down the aisle towards my desk, . . . Mr. Beebe stopped me and told me that the office was closed. And I asked him why, he just grinned at me, and he said that was his orders, that I had to go back on production." 42 None of these employees was ever recalled and given employment by the Respondent. The record establishes that the Respondent has always followed a rule whereby employees who were laid off but not recalled within 30 days were considered to be terminated. If they were reemployed more than 30 days after being laid off, they lost . previously accumu- lated seniority and were termed new employees . In April 1947 , no new employees were hired and no laid-off employees were recalled . On May 28, 1947 , two employees were recalled to work. Upon these circumstances and the entire record, the undersigned finds that the Respondent 's failure to offer reemployment to Mersino , Sawyer, Cooper, Gregor, Janka, Lawrence , Davis, and Dixon was not violative of the Wagner Act nor the Act. 43 Beebe admitted that he inquired of employees Haney and Wickline as to the attendance of union meetings , but denied that he ever asked employees if they attended union meetings. For reasons previously stated, his denial is not credited. 'STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 173 She was immediately transferred to her last production job, polishing pans, ivhich was considerably dirtier and more unpleasant than her clerical position. . In regard to the reasons for Urick's transfer, Beebe testified that he and Crowe discussed the matter and, realizing that she was active in the Union, they de- termined to transfer her to a production job so that she would not have access to the Respondent's production records, which they deemed to be confidential, and would not have the consequent opportunity to turn such information over to the Union. It was stipulated that if Crowe were recalled by the Respondent as a witness he would have denied the testimony of Beebe. For the reasons previously mentioned, the undersigned credits Beebe's testimony. General Manager William G. Kemp testified credibly that as a part of the Respondent's retrenchment program, discussed above, the Respondent reduced its force of clerical and nonproduction employees as well as the production workers. The Respondent's records show, and the undersigned finds, that on February 15, 1947, seven nonproduction employees were laid off. In addition on April 15 and 30, 1947, respectively, groups of seven and four nonproduction em- ployees were laid off." With respect to the transfer of Urick, Kemp testified, "from the records I know that we cut down on non-productive help at that .time.... The job was discontinued" and never reinstated. Although there may have been some justification for the abolition of Urick's job as production clerk because of the economic difficulties necessitating a re- duction in force, nevertheless, as revealed by Beebe's testimony, the prevailing reason for her transfer was her union membership and activities. It is now well settled and the undersigned accordingly finds that the duties of production clerks, such as Urick held, are not of such a confidential nature as to classify the position managerial in character and that by transferring Urick from her pro- duction clerk position to the polishing job, because of her union activities and membership, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act" 2. -The discriminatory discharge of Urick As mentioned previously, Urick was included among those employees to be laid off on April 4, 1947, but when she protested, it was found that her seniority ,entitled her to "bump" another employee in one of the polishing departments. She participated in the union rally on the afternoon of April 4, and continued her union activities. Urick testified that shortly after April 4, 1947, she had the following conversa- tion with President Lewis during working hours: [Lewis] came . .. out to the job where I was finishing some tea kettles and told me I was making an ass of myself. And I asked him what he meant, and he repeated it again, and I told him I didn't like that kind of talk. But he would not commit himself as to what it was or why I was doing that. And then he asked me if I didn't like working for Mr. Beebe, and I said, "yes." Yes, I did, and he said if I hadn't been making an ass of myself I would still be working for Mr. Beebe. " Two or three of these employees were in the Sales Follow-up Department ; one was an accountant, two were time-study employees, one was a "material control" employee and the remainder were clerical employees, according to Kemp's credible testimony. 46 Armour and Company, 54 NLRB 1005. See also Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Com- pany, 70 NLRB 348. 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lewis specifically denied making the remarks attributed to him by Urick but testified that on one occasion he had a conversation with Urick who complained about being removed from a clerical job and put on a dirty job. According to Lewis, he said, "I think things will iron itself out if we get some work in and you will probably be back at your regular job again ... . Why worry about it." In view of the other statements found to have been made by Lewis, as well as the undersigned's impression of the witnesses and the findings in respect to the transfer of Urick, the undersigned credits Urick's testimony and finds that Lewis made the statements attributed to him by Urick. The undersigned infers that Lewis was referring to Urick's union activities when he stated that if Urick had not made such an ass of herself she would still be working as a production clerk. Since the statements of Lewis contained an implied promise of benefit, the undersigned finds that the remarks of Lewis constituted inter- ference, restraint, and coercion with the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act. Urick testified credibly, as follows, that after her transfer to the production job, her foreman, William Kelly, frequently inquired as to the nature of her conversations with other employees : . . . every time I talked with anybody [Foreman Kelly] asked me if I was passing out union cards and talking about the union, no matter what hap- pened, whether it was in connection with my job or not. And one time I was going up to the tool crib for a face shield which is a celluloid piece that come clear down over your face and I went to the tool crib and got it. And the fellow employee that was working right near the tool crib asked me where I was going with that thing, or what I was going to do with it, and I told him I was going to wear it. He was just kidding me about it. When I got down the aisle Dir. Kelly asked me what he had said and I told him. He said, "You are sure you were not talking about the union?" I said, "No, I wasn't." He took me down by the arm, and marched me down by Herb Wilson. And asked Herb Wilson what I said.98 On April 7, 1947, the following notice signed by President Lewis was posted in the plant : NOTICE In accordance with the long standing rule, solicitation of any kind is strictly forbidden at any time on Company property. Violation of this rule will result in immediate discharge. On April 22, 1947, Urick gave a union application card to an employee in the cafeteria during lunch period. Superintendent Crowe observed the incident. When Urick returned to work, Superintendent Crone came to her work station and discharged her for violation of the above-quoted no-solicitation rule. Urick remonstrated that "it was all right because I was on my own time," but Crowe took her to the time clock where the notice was posted and pointed out that the rule forbade all solicitation "at any time on Company property." It is now established that rules prohibiting union solicitation on the premises cf an employer during employees' nonworking. time are violative of the Act, unless it is shown that the rule is necessary to maintain production or discipline 47 98 Kelly denied the statements and occurrence testified to by Urick . Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Urick 's testimony. Kelly's denials are not credited. 47 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R. B.; N. L. R. B. v. LeTourneau Company of Georgia, 324 U. S. 793. - STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 175 The credible testimony of numerous witnesses establishes that employees having farms or truck gardens sold such produce as eggs, chickens, butter, honey, and cream to fellow employees and in some instances to supervisors. Some of -the female employees sold handiwork, Christmas cards, and other articles. These sales were made on the Respondent's property, sometimes during work- ing hours and sometimes not, and extended over a period of several years. Such transactions were admittedly known to some of the Respondent's super- visors." Contributions from employees for Christmas gifts to President Lewis were solicited in the plant with the knowledge of supervisors in 1945 and 1946. Although the Respondent contends that the rule had always been in existence, no employees were ever discharged or disciplined for the sale of these products or solicitation of contributions. The Respondent further asserts in its brief that the rule was posted because of these transactions in produce and other goods among the employees and because of the conducting by employees of check pools, a gambling device, the existence of which several supervisors testi- fied they had heard rumors. The Respondent also avers that because its plant was in a rural area, the solicitation "problem was more acute than in a strictly urban plant where employees do not have private businesses." Granting that there was considerable buying and selling of produce and goods among the employees on the Respondent's property, often during work- ing hours, nevertheless, the record does not show that the transactions inter- fered with plant discipline or production to such an extent as to justify the enforcement of the broad no-solicitation rule. Significantly, although the pur- pose of the rule was to stop such transactions and the rumored gambling, 9 the only invocation of the rule, so far as the record shows, was on the occasion Urick gave an employee a union card during their lunch time in the cafeteria. Also significant in enforcing the rule as to Urick's union activities during her free time is the fact that Crowe told Foreman Paul Lewis that Urick and Mer- sino were two of the employees "he would have to get . . . out of the shop, regardless." 50 Also noteworthy is the fact that although the no-solicitation rule was allegedly in existence since the commencement of the Respondent's operations, it was never before posted in written form until April 1947, after the commencement of the union's organizational campaign and the discrimina- tory discharges of Breeze and Bjork.61 Upon the entire record, regardless of when the no-solicitation rule was enunci- ated, the undersigned is persuaded and finds that the Respondent has not es-. tablished any special circumstances or cogent reason, warranting extension of the prohibition to nonworking time, when production and efficiency could not normally be affected by union activity. The undersignet: concludes and finds that the Respondent, by promulgating and enforcing a no-solicitation rule ap- 98 There are numerous conflicts in the testimony as to this issue The findings in this paragraph are based upon the testimony of employees Cooper, Walters, Nichols, Graham, Swek, and in part upon the testimony of Urick and Breeze. Viewing the record as a whole, the undersigned is persuaded that the testimony of Urick arid Breeze as to the extent and volume of such transactions was somewhat exaggerated. Supervisors admitting knowledge of some of these transactions were Foreman Paul Lewis, Personnel Manager Mack, and General Manager Kemp. 41 Superintendent Crowe testified that lie liist heard rumors of the check pool around Christmas 1946. Since the rule was posted more than 3 months later, it seems unlikely that such rumors were the reason for the posting of the rule. 50 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Paul Lewis. From his observation of the witnesses and for the reasons previously stated, Crowe's denials are not credited. 51 According to Personnel Manager Mack, the no-solicitation rule existed as "an unwritten law," prior to its posting in April 1947. 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plicable to nonworking time and by Foreman Kelly's interrogation of Urick, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, in violation of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of Wagner Act and the Act, and, by discharging Urick for violating this rule by engaging in union solicitation during nonworking time, discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act." J. The refusals to rehire 1. Virginia Lawrence Lawrence testified credibly and without contradiction that on October 3, 1947, she applied for work with the Respondent and was informed by Personnel Manager Mack that they had no openings." Lawrence had been employed in the polishing department prior to the April lay-off and was listed in the senior- ity roll used in the April lay-off as employed in the grind hand department. The Respondent's records of 1947 hirings of employees were introduced into evidence and show that three employees were hired in the month of October 1947-one on October 2, 1947, in the automatic buff department and the other two on subse- quent dates in October in the cafeteria and maintenance departments. From these records, Lawrence's experience, and the job descriptions shown by the record, the undersigned finds that there were no jobs available for Lawrence on October 3, 1947, and that the refusal to employ her was not violative of the Act. 2. Egbert Ray Mersino Nathan Wheeler, who was never in the Respondent's employ but who was a friend of Mersino, testified that in October 1947, at Mersino's suggestion , Wheeler applied for a job and was told by a girl in the employment office that the Re- spondent "was not hiring nothing but buffers." Wheeler could not identify the girl in the office but stated that it was not Personnel Manager Mack. Wheeler did not desire that,type of job and left the office, stopping to talk to a watchman. While talking with the watchman, he observed Mersino enter the employment office. Mersino testified that in October 1947, pursuant to their agreement, Wheeler preceded him to the Respondent's plant to seek employment by about 15 or 30 minutes and that he saw Wheeler talking to a watchman as Mersino entered the employment office. Mersino testified that he filled out an application blank and gave it to Personnel Manager Mack. According to Mersino, Mack took the application to Superintendent Crowe, who was in an adjoining room, and a few minutes later returned, saying "she was sorry, they weren't doing no hiring." °' Mack. who was present when Wheeler testified, testified that she never saw him in the employment office and that she was the only regular employee in the employment office, except that on occasions of brief absences of Mack an employee might be in the -office but with authority only to say "that Mrs. Mack 62 Urick testified that after her transfer she was assigned from time to time to odious tasks, such as sweeping the floor in her department and sorting scrap, unconnected with the work in her department. Inasmuch as ojher employees in various departments were on occasion given the same tasks, the undersigned finds that such assignments do not reflect upon the Respondent 's motives in its transfer and subsequent discharge of Urick. ea On October 3, 1947 , an unfair labor practice charge in respect to the termination of Lawrence's employment by the Respondent was filed with the Board. 64 On August 21, 1947, the unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Respondent's termination of Mersino 's employment was violative of the Act was filed with the Board. This charge was served upon the Respondent on or about August 21, 1947. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 177 was not there." Mack was not questioned with respect to Mersino's application for re-employment. Records of the Respondent reflecting the dates of hiring of employees refute the testimony of Wheeler. The only employee hired in the buffing departments in October was on October 2, 1947. In November two additional buffers were hired on November 6 and 24, 1947, respectively. If the Respondent were hiring only buffers, as Wheeler testified he was informed by someone other than Per- sonnel Manager Mack, it seems likely that the hiring records would reflect the addition of more than one buffer on October 2, and two in November. In view of these records, the undersigned's impression of the witnesses, and' the fact that Wheeler's application was made pursuant to a compact with Mersino, the undersigned concludes that Wheeler's testimony is not entitled to credence. The employment records of the Respondent do not establish that openings for buffers existed at the time Mersino applied for employment at an unspecified date in October 1947. The undersigned concludes that the Respondent' s refusal to employ Mersino was not violative of the Act. 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 The undersigned has found that the Respondent violated the Wagner Act and the Act by interrogating its employees concerning their union membership and activities and the identity of employees attending union meetings ; by en- gaging in surveillance of union meetings ; by threats of bodily harm or loss of jobs unless employees ceased their union activities ; by threatening a reduction in work if the Union organized the plant ; by polling the employees to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Union as their collective bargaining representative ; by promulgating and enforcing a rule prohibiting union solici- tations during employees' free time on Respondent's property ; by transferring Marian Urick from a clerical job to a polishing job ; and by discriminatorily discharging Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick. Such dis- crimination, in the language of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "goes to the very heart of the Act." `5 Upon the entire record, the undersigned infers and finds that the Respondent's illegal action, mentioned above, discloses an intent to defeat self-organization and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act. Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and the underlying purposes manifested thereby, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that danger of commission in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices defined in the Act is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recom- mendations are coextensive with the threat.66 In order, therefore, to make ss N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C. A. 4). aeN. L . R. B. v. Empress Publishing Company , 312 U . S. 426. 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent recurrence of unfair labor practices , and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act , the under- signed will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist , not only from the unfair labor practices herein found , but also from in any other manner inter- fering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Florence Bjork and Annabel Breeze, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent offer each of them full and immediate rein- statement to her former or a substantially equivalent position ,5' without prej- udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make each of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrim- ination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings during said period ' The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Marian Urick by discharging her on April 22, 1947. He has also found that by transferring Urick from her clerical position on or about March 31, 1947, the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned finds it necessary to recommend that Urick be reinstated to her clerical position and to be made whole for any losses in wages that she may have incurred since the date of her transfer .50 Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent offer Urick immediate and full reinstatement to her position as production clerk , or a substantially equiv- alent position ,60 without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her transfer and subsequent discharge , by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her transfer from the production clerk position to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings during such period. Since the Respondent 's no-solicitation rule has been found to be unduly restrictive of the rights of the employees under the Wagner Act and the Act so far as it provides that there shall be no solicitation on company property during nonworking time, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent rescind its rule against solicitation on company property insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on nonworking time. It will also be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of 5 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression "former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former positioh wherever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent position." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. 58 See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 492-498. 69 Cf. Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc., 59 NLRB 486. 80 The record reveals that the position of production clerk occupied by Urick was abol- ished at the time of her transfer but that there was some possibility of its being reinstituted. If the position has not been reestablished, it is recommended that Urick be reinstated in a comparable clerical job, for which the record shows she has had training and experience, and not in the polishing job, which she held at the time of her discharge. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 179 employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy Gregor, Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, Doris Davis, Eva Dixon, and Myrtle Geliske, in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and insofar as it alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, except as otherwise found herein. • Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of both the Wagner Act and the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick, thereby discouraging mem- bership in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within'the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and of Section S (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section S (1) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of both the Wagner Act and the Act. 5. The Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy Gregor, Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, Doris Davis, Eva Dixon, and Myrtle Geliske. RECOMDIENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Stainless Ware Company of America, Walled Lake, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging and 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 employment ; (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union membership and ac- tivities and the identity of employees attending union meetings engaging in surveillance of union meetings ; threatening bodily harm or loss of jobs to employees unless they cease their union activities; threatening a reduction in work if the above-named Union or any labor organization organized the plant ; polling employees to determine whether they desire to be represented by a labor organization ; prohibiting the solicitation of union memberships on company property during nonworking time; or in any other manner interfering with, 877359-50-vol. S7-13 ISO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned fipds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Florence Bjork and Annabel Breeze immediate and full re- instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay that she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her by payment of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the Respondent's discrimination against her, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period; (b) Offer to Marian Urick immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position as a production clerk, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any.loss of pay that she may have suffered as a result of her transfer from the production- clerk position by payment of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of her transfer from the production-clerk position to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less her net earnings during such period; (c) Rescind immediately the rule prohibiting solicitation on the Respondent's property, insofar as it applies to union solicitation during the employees' non working time; (d) Post at its plant in Walled Lake, Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative, be posted by the Respondent iminediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 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 by any other material; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy Gregor, Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, Doris Davis, Eva Dixon, and Myrtle Geliske and insofar as it alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, except as otherwise found herein. It is further recommended that, unless the respondent shall, within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond- ent to take such action. STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA . 181 As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National. Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days front 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, Washington 25, D. C.,• an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding: (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and 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. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep- tions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each- of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions or' 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is tiled 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 17th day of August 1949. FREDERIC B. PARRIES, 2nd, Trial Examiner. APPENDIX A 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAT,, UNION, UNITEa AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other labor organization by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our em- ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliations or activities and the identity of employees attending union meetings. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with bodily harm or loss of jobs unless they cease their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a reduction in work if the above- named union or any other labor organization succeeds in organizing our employees. WE WILL NOT poll our employees to determine whether they desire to be rep- resented by the above-named union or any other labor organization for the purpose of collective. bargaining. 182 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF IN- DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE HEREBY RESCIND our rule forbidding solicitation on company property, insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on the employees' nonworking time. WE WILL OFFER to Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of such labor organization. All our employees are free to become or remain 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 Act. SFAINLESS \VARE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Employer. By --------------------------------------- (P.epresentative ) (Title) Dated ------------------------------------ This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) clays from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.