Union City Body Co., Inc.

In the Matter of UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. wild INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 11-C-1219.Decided. June 28, 1916 DECISION AND ORDER On March 6, 1946, the Trial Examiners issued their Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On June 6, 1946, the Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument in which the respondent and the Union participated. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the re- spondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiners,2 with the additions hereinafter set forth. 1. The respondent contended that the strike during which Hobbs was discharged was illegal and that Hobbs was not, therefore, en- titled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. In support of this contention, the respondent claimed that the strike was in violation of a no-strike pledge made by the International Union to the President of the United States, that the strike involved the issue of wages under the Wage Stabilization Act, and that the Union failed to give notice of the labor dispute as required by the War Labor Disputes Act. We affirm the Trial Examiners' findings i In paragraph 2 (a) of the Trial Examiners' Recommendations , the date of Jerry Hobbs' first discriminatory discharge is stated to be July 15, 1945 This is a typographical error and should be, and it hereby is, corrected to read June 15, 1945 2 On April 13, 1946, the respondent filed with the Board a "Motion For Modification of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law " in accordance with the respondent's exceptions, and a motion to dismiss the complaint. These motions are hereby denied. 69 N. L. R B., No. 16. 172 UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 173 that these contentions are without merit. We find no basis in the circumstances attending the alleged no-strike pledge which would nullify the remedial rights under the Act of an employee who had been illegally discharged. As to the wage contention, the facts of this case show. as the Trial Examiners found, that the purpose of the strike was not to compel the respondent to grant higher wages in contravention of the Wage Stabilization Act. Rather, the employees desired to restrain the respondent from reducing the existing wage scale of certain of its employees. The situation presented here is thus not analogous to that involved in the American News case,3 inasmuch as here the respondent was not being compelled to violate the Wage Stabilization Act by granting an illegal wage increase. We also agree, for the reasons stated in the Republic Steel case,4 that Hobbs is not to be deprived of his rights under the Act because of the Union's failure to give notice of the labor dispute. 2. The respondent also contended that the reasons for Hobbs' dis- charge should be considered in the light of the respondent's allegedly favorable background of labor relations and that, in supporting the allegation of discrimination, it was incumbent upon the Board to show the existence of an anti-union background. It is true that a history of favorable or unfavorable labor relations may lend inter- pretative light to an employer's subsequent conduct. For this reason we have carefully considered the facts concerning the respondent's labor relations background in the case. We have also carefully con- sidered the evidence adduced by the respondent to the effect that it discharged Hobbs because of his alleged violation of company rules. Although our decision is not to be taken as condoning employee mis- conduct of the nature attributed to Hobbs, nevertheless, we are con- vinced and find upon all the circumstances that the respondent dis- criminatorily discharged Hobbs because of his union membership and activities, as the Trial Examiners found, and not for the reasons alleged by the respondent. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Union City Body Com- pany, Inc., Union City, Indiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Au- tomobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 8 Matter of The American News Company, Inc., 55 N. L R B. 1302, 1306. 4Matter of Republic Steel Corporation , 62 N. L. R B. 100S, 1023 ; Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company , 64 N. L. It. B. 824. 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con- certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Jerry Hobbs immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him , by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from June 15, 1945, the date of his first discriminatory discharge , to the date of the offer of rein- statement, less his net earnings during the period; (b) Post at its plants in Union City, Indiana, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, after being duly signed by the respondent 's repre- sentative , shall be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there- after, 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; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ- ing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this ORDER , what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : The Trial Examiners found that Hobbs, as president of the Union local, has been the leading official of the Union since May 1944. Hobbs was thus the representative of the employees required by the 5 Said notice , however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para- graph thereof the words "RECOMMENDATIONS OF TRIAL EXAMINERS" and substitut- ing in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER " UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 175 War Labor Disputes Act to file a notice 30 days in advance of the pro- posed strike with this Board and two other designated agencies. For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Republic Steel Corporation, 62 N. L. R. B. 1008, (in which I discussed the legislative history of the War Labor Disputes Act), a representative like Hobbs, who struck without giving the notice required by the War Labor Disputes Act, is not entitled to reinstatement or back pay. While I am also dubious of the majority's holding that Hobbs was discriminated against, since it seems to me that his admitted infrac- tions of the plant rules culminating in the insolent conduct which pro- voked the fight at the strike conference were the motivating factors in his discharge, nevertheless the failure to give the required strike notice should compel dismissal of the complaint. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr Cliffor d L Hard il, for the Board. Mr. Meyer W. Leib, of Detroit, Mich, and Mr. Hori p fee, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the respondent. Mr. Jesse Peden, of Indianapolis, Ind. for the Union. STATEMENT of THE CASE Upon a first amended charge filed on December 19, 1945, by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. 1. 0, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), issued it;. complaint dated December 26, 1945, against Union City Body Company, Inc. herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent (1) from on or about April 1, 1945, interrogated employees concerning their activities in behalf of the Union, and maligned, vilified, assaulted, and beat employees who were officials of the Union, thereby indicating opposition to self-organization among its employees, and (2) on or about June 15, 1915, discharged Jerry I3obbs and thereafter refused to reinstate him, because of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union On January 4, 1946, the respondent tiled an answer, on January 8, 1946, amend- nients thereto, and on January 16, 1946, during the course of the hearing, further amendments thereto, admitting some of the allegations of the complaint, but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Union City, Indiana, from January 16 to January 21, 1946, before Thomas S Wilson and Millard L. Midonick, the undersigned Trial Examiners duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel, and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties Upon motion by the respondent, witnesses were excluded from the hearing rooms except when testifying Upon the conclusion of the hearing the 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD undersigned advised the parties that they might argue orally before the Trial Examiners and that they might file briefs with them. None of the parties en- gaged in oral argument. Briefs, filed by all parties, have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from their observation of the wit- nesses, the undersigned make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Union City Body Company, Inc, is an Indiana corporation having two plants in Union City, Indiana. It is engaged in the manufacture and assembly of bus bodies. The respondent uses raw materials consisting principally of sheet steel, plywood, and paint, which exceed in value $2,500,000 annually, of which about $2,000,000 annually is shipped to it from outside the State of Indiana. The annual value of the product manufactured by the respondent exceeds $4,500,000, of which in excess of $4,000,000 in value is shipped by it annually to points out- side the State of Indiana. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting employees of the respondent to membership in its affiliate, Local 494. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discriniinatorp discharge; interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Background Jerry Hobbs was first employed by the respondent in August 1937 as fireman and watchman. After the first six months of employment, his duties were re- stricted to those of a fireman until 1942. As a result of elections conducted by the Board, the Union has been the ex- clusive bargaining representative of the employees of the respondent, except supervisory employees, from 1937 until the present time, and until May 25, 1945, the Union and the respondent were parties to labor agreements. In 1939, Hobbs joined the Union, and in 1940 he was elected to the bargaining committee of Local 494 of the Union as representative of nonproduction workers In March 1941 and again in April 1942, Hobbs was elected president of Local 494. In April 1942, he received a written leave of absence for an indefinite period from Adelsperger, the respondent's treasurer, expressly for the purpose of serving on the staff of the Union as a representative. Upon his return to the respondent's service in September 1942, Hobbs was also named chairman of the Local 494 bargaining committee in the respondent's plants. The duties of the latter office included the investigation of grievances with the plant superin- tendent. In the late summer of 1943, Adelsperger, respondent's treasurer, requested Hobbs to assume a position on the management staff in charge of material con- trol. This offer was conditioned upon Hobbs' withdrawal from the Union. In the past, other union leaders had been promoted to supervisory positions. After a short delay, Hobbs informed Dewey, personnel director, of his acceptance of the new position and of the condition imposed. Hobbs did withdraw from the Union. In the spring of 1944, Hobbs renewed his membership in the Union while still in charge of material control. Hobbs testified that he requested a transfer UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 177 from material control on the ground of his renewed membership, while Woodward, assistant treasurer and assistant general manager of the respondent,' asserted that management first broached this subject, taking the position that Hobbs' return to the Union necessitated his removal from the supervisory position in material control. We credit Woodward's version. At the suggestion of Wood- ward and Stewart, the production superintendent, Hobbs agreed to accept a position as spot welder's helper. 2 The sequence of events From the time of Hobbs' return to the Union in the spring of 1944 until the hearing, he has served as president and business agent of Local 494 and as chair- man of its bargaining committee. Since Hobbs' return to the Union as its pre- siding local officer, there have been three strikes. The first of these three walk-outs occurred on May 31, 1944, the day Hobbs was transferred to spot welding. On that day, the welders struck due to a grievance of long standing concerning the lack of adequate ventilation for fumes created by welding, and they did not return to work until June 25, 1,944. The plants shut down as a result of this stoppage. While Woodward believed that this stoppage was due to Hobbs' influence, it is clear from the testimony of Bretz, a welder who participated in the walk out, that Hobbs in fact did not instigate it In September and October 1944, the second stoppage occurred lasting 10 days to 2 weeks.' In December 1944, the respondent retained Industrial Relations, a Detroit firm of labor relations consultants, to handle their labor relations. This firm was composed of Arthur Stringari and James Dort, who have continued to handle these-matters on behalf of the respondent to the present time. In 1945, during contract renewal negotiations, a third strike occurred. The respondent and the Union had been parties to a series of labor agreements until the termination of the closed-shop contract which covered the period October 6, 1944 to May 24, 1945. Thirty days prior to the May 24, 1945, expiration date, Woodward had written the Union that the contract would not be renewed and that further wage studies would be necessary, addressing the letter to the "Bargaining Committee" of Local 494 "Attention : Mr. J. Hobbs." After a number of bargaining conferences bad been held, the parties conferred again during the early afternoon of May 24, 1945, the expiration date of the existing contract. At the beginning of this conference, the parties were in dis- agreement on two issues. The Union favored the reincorporation in any new contract of two clauses in the then current contract providing (1) that the matter of wages set forth in the contract shall be open for negotiation at any time (referred to as the "interim opening wage" clause) and providing (2) for an annual termination date of May 24. The respondent desired to delete the interim opening wage clause and to extend the termination date by 6 months. Although the respondent had notified the Union in writing 30 days before that it desired to alter the contract wage rates, it submitted its first new wage scale proposal at this conference on the contract termination day. During the conference, no further resolution of the issues was achieved except that the respondent offered as a concession that the interim opening wage clause remain in the proposed agreement. ' Since April 1, 1944, Woodward has been in charge of the respondent's operations, fi- nances, and labor relations He had been employed by the respondent since 1941. 2 The record does not disclose the cause of this strike nor Hobbs ' part, if any, in it. 701592-47-vol. 69-13 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Immediately following this bargaining conference, a membership meeting of Local 494 of the Union was held. Upon being apprised of the status of the nego- tiations as recounted above, the membership voted to conduct an immediate work stoppage. The purpose of the strike was to prevent the deletion of the annual termination date clause from the contract and to prevent the proposed alteration by the respondent of the wage rates set up in the expiring contract. After the union membership meeting, Stringari, who was participating as a representative of the respondent in the bargaining conferences with the Union, telephoned Hobbs, and they made an appointment to meet on a street in Union City near the Dinner Bell restaurant. At about 5: 30 p. in on that day, Hobbs and Gress, a member of the union bargaining committee, met Woodward and Stringari at the ap- pointed place. Woodward testified that the management representatives asked Hobbs and Gress how the union "meeting came out, what the membership thought of the proposition," Woodward further testified : [Hobbs] informed us that it didn't go over so big. Didn't think the boys were going to return to work. We were surprised. The four men moved to Stringari's automobile close by where, according to Hobb's testimony, the conversation continued as follows : .. . [Stringari] says, "Did you make the motion to strike, or encourage it?" and I said "No," and he says, "Are you sure you didn't, Jerry?" and I said, "No; it's immaterial to me what they do about it. They are the membership and they are the ones I work for," and he said, "Well, the Company can't stand too much of this, and don't let it go over ten days," and he said, "It wouldn't be good for you if it goes over ten days " Stringari denied the remarks recounted in Hobbs' testimony; Woodward was unable to remember this part of the conversation. Both Woodward and Stringari were unable to remember or be certain of the whole of the conversation had at that time. The undersigned credit the quoted testimony above and find that the conversation took place as set forth. The strike began on May 25, 1945, resulting in a complete shutdown. On June 13, 1945, the U. S. Conciliation Service held a meeting of representatives of the respondent and the Union, during which Hobbs and Stringari engaged in a fight which is more fully discussed hereinafter. On June 15, after the strike had been in progress 20 days, Hobbs was discharged. On July 2, 1945, the employees returned to work pursuant to an order of the War Labor Board providing for the resumption of production and the reinstate- ment of all employees including Hobbs. On the first day of his remstateplent by the War Labor Board, Hobbs was again discharged. He has not since been reinstated. Whitesel, purchasing agent of the respondent, called as a witness for the respondent, testified that upon his return from out of town about May 28, 1945, he met Hobbs on the street, and asked Hobbs if he had had any meetings with the respondent. Hobbs replied : "No, and I won't ask for any meeting if it breaks the God Damn Company."' About June 4, 1945, Whitesel reported the above incident to Fitzgerald, president of the respondent. This testimony pre- sented by the respondent is credited despite Hobbs' denial. These several strikes in 1944 and 1945 impressed the respondent as a serious threat to its business. The respondent was operating under contract with the 3 This is the only evidence introduced by the respondent in support of its allegation that one of its reasons for discharging Hobbs, was because be "conspired to bankrupt the Com- pany " In view of the total lack of evidence this position of the respondent cannot be con- sidered seriously. UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 179 Ford Motor Company to purchase every bus chassis which came off the Ford assembly line, its only source of supply. The respondent builds the bus bodies on these chassis and sells finished busses. Woodward testified : "We had been criticized by the Ford Motor Company for our work stoppages. They had to shut down the Ford assembly line . . . during our stoppages. . . .. Wood- ward further testified : Q. Were you worried about more stoppages causing the loss of the Ford business? A. I would have to answer yes. Q. Did you feel that the discharge of Hobbs would remove some of that worry? A. I would have to answer that yes. Q. Did you feel that if it was either the Union City Body Company or Jerry Hobbs, that one of them had to go? A. I would have to answer that yes. It was down to the point where something had to be done. That's the best answer I can think of. There were four unauthorized strikes in eighteen months, four work stoppages in eighteen months. . a. The fight On June 13, 1945, representatives of both the respondent and the Union met at the office of the United States Conciliation Service in Indianapolis, Indiana. Some time after the meeting began before Commissioner Arthur Pierson of that Service, Stringari and Hobbs exchanged personal and threatening remarks and came to blows.` The respondent and the Union each had several representatives seated about the conciliation table. Stringari and Hobbs faced each other across the table: Seated about one end of the table between Stringari and Hobbs were Woodward, Conciliator Pierson, and Harrington, Assistant Regional Director of the UAW- CIO During the course of negotiations, Stringari remarked that the labor leadership in respondent's plant was "irresponsible." Hobbs retorted to the effect that the labor relations had been proceeding satisfactorily until "screw balls" from Detroit were called in as representatives of the respondent in its labor relations. Stringari advised Hobbs to hold his tongue or he, Stringari, would help him to do so. Hobbs then inquired of Stringari why he did not come around the table to carry out his threat. With this, Stringari arose from his, place and commenced to walk around the end of the council table toward Hobbs' side. Woodward testified : I tried to cool down Art [Stringari] or something like that. I didn't take hold of him. On his way toward Hobbs' side of the table, Stringari also passed Conciliator Pierson and Harrington. Conciliator Pierson requested all parties to resume discussions . When Stringari reached Harrington who was sitting beside Hobbs, Hobbs rose. There is conflict in the testimony as to whether Hobbs or Stringari landed the first blow. By the time Harrington stopped the fight by turning Stringari away from Hobbs, Hobbs had been struck twice about the face and was Ding back over the table at his own place , and Stringari had been kicked some- tshere about the thigh . After the fight the discussions before Conciliator a The complaint charges that the respondent by reason of this incident was responsible for "maligning, vilifying, assaulting and beating" an official of the Union in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act The respondent's answer to the complaint, on the other hand, alleges that among various reasons for Hobbs' discharge was that he "maligned, vilified and assaulted a company representative with intent to do great bodily harm" 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pierson were resumed and both Hobbs and Stringari participated for part of the time in the remainder of the conference. At the conclusion of the conference a conversation was had between Harrington, Assistant Regional Director UAW- CIO, and Stringari. Harrington's version of this conversation was not contra- dicted and it is credited by the undersigned : I told him that that was the first time I ever seen anybody from manage- ment really blow their top, and start a fight, especially in a conciliation office, and I thought it was very funny of him to do that . . . He told me that anybody could lose their head, was the very words he said to me. Certain conflicts in the testimony concerning the fight have been resolved adversely to the version of the respondent's witnesses. The undersigned cannot credit Stringari's version of the incident, to the effect that lie was merely at- tempting to leave the room when attacked by Hobbs, because of his attempt to magnify his injuries resulting therefrom, because of the uncontradicted testi- mony quoted above, and because of the credibility of certain of the other wit- nesses who were present and whose testimony conforms to the findings made above. b. The first discharge Woodward testified, and the undersigned find, that the respondent's presi- dent Fitzgerald, who had been apprised about 10 days before of Hobbs' remark about "breaking" the respondent during the strike, telephoned Woodward from Detroit on June 14, 1945, and asked Woodward what he would do about the Indianapolis incident 6 Woodward answered that the respondent would have to discharge Hobbs. Accordingly, in a letter dated June 15, 1945, during the continuation of the strike, Woodward informed Hobbs of his discharge: Please take notice that effective today your employment with the Union City Body Company, Inc. severed (sic) as of June 15, 1945 on the grounds of being an undesirable employee. No mention of the Indianapolis incident nor of any other specific reason for the discharge is to be found in this letter. On June 29, 1945, representatives of both the respondent and the Union ap- peared in Chicago at the direction of the War Labor Board Regional Office to show cause why the strike should not be immediately terminated. The respond- ent was there informed that the War Labor Board policy required upon im- mediate termination of the strike that the respondent accept all employees, in- cluding Hobbs, back into its employ. The respondent made it clear, and there is no conflict in the evidence on this point, that if Hobbs were reinstated by the War Labor Board, he would be discharged again immediately. On June 30, 1945, the War Labor Board issued a telegraphic order to Local 494 and the respondent directing in part: 1 ALL STRIKING EMPLOYEES SHALL RETURN TO WORK FORTH- WITH. 2 THE RESPONSIBLE UNION OFFICIALS SHALL TAKE ALL NECES- SARY STEPS TO EFFECT AN IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF THE STRIKE. 3 THE COMPANY SHALL ACCEPT ALL EMPLOYEES BACK INTO ITS EMPLOY UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME THE STRIKE BEGAN. 6 Fitzgerald himself did not testify . Woodward assumed that Fitzgerald 's source of in- formation was Stringari, since the offices of both men were in Detroit. UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 181 4 THFl COMPANY SHALL ENGAGE IN NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE WHILE THE INTERRUPTION OF PRODUCTION CONTINUES. 5 THAT IN THE EVENT THAT AFTER THE RESUMPTION OF PRO- DUCTION, ONE JERRY HOBBS IS DISCHARGED, SUCH DIS- CHARGE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION.... c. The second discharge On June 30, 1945, to effectuate the War Labor Board's telegraphic order of that date, the bargaining committee and the executive board of the Union, in- cluding Hobbs, met with Woodward and Stewart to arrange for production to resume on July 2, 1945. At this meeting, Hobbs asked Woodward if he would be discharged again as had been threatened on the preceding day in Chicago. Woodward replied that such action "was up not only to him but to Mr. Adel- sperger e and Mr. Kuntz,' Mr. Fitzgerald,s Mr. Stringari and Mr. Nort." On July 2, 1945, the respondent's plants reopened and Hobbs returned to work at 7 a. in. as ordered by the War Labor Board. Shortly prior to noon on the same morning, Bothast, Hobbs' foreman who had been in charge of the metal shop for 23 years, approached him at his work and handed him a notice of discharge re- citing : You are hereby notified of your discharge for the following reason-On the grounds of being an undesirable employee. Although this notice of discharge was signed by Bothast as foreman, Bothast testified that he "was not called in on any of the meetings that the management had over discharging of Jerry," that the discharge of Hobbs was not discussed with him, and that Superintendent Stewart merely directed Bothast without comment to sign and deliver the discharge notice. Bothast also testified that Woodward had told him of Hobbs' June 15 discharge during the strike, but that Woodward did not tell him why Hobbs had been discharged. The undersigned find in accordance with Bothast's testimony in these respects. Upon receiving the discharge slip on July 2, Hobbs inquired why he was being discharged and Bothast replied that he was unable to discuss it. On July 30, 1945, Berkebile, international representative of the Union, called Nort, one of the respondent's labor relations representatives, asking Nort to "specify" with respect to the meaning of "undesirable" employee. Nort refused. On the next day the Union renewed its request for "specific charges" in writing by letter addressed to Woodward. On August 3, 1945, the respondent answerd over Stringari's signature stating: The specific charges against Mr. Hobbs remain unchanged : `undesirable employee.' 3. The respondent's alleged reasons for discharge In its answer , as amended, the respondent asserts that Hobbs was discharged for the following reasons among others : "That Jerry Hobbs was a surly, hot- headed and ill-tempered employee ; that he was continually absent and late from work and refused to work overtime in violation of reasonable company rules and without approval or ratification of his actions; that on numerous occasions Treasurer of the respondent. An officer of the respondent who did not testify. President of the respondent who did not testify. An associate of Stringari. 182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he addressed his foreman and supervisors with foul , abusive, defamatory and obscene language in an attempt to undermine respect for them and that he used such foul, abusive, defamatory and obscene language in the presence of women employees ; that he continually violated the company `no smoking' rule after being warned on numerous occasions to refrain from smoking ; that he loitered about the company premises engaging in discussion on matters not connected with union activities ; that he solicited union dues on company premises in violation of the bargaining contract. . . ." Woodward, who claimed to be "solely responsible for making . . . out" the letter of June 15, 1945, discharging Hobbs as "undesirable," admitted that "to the best of my knowledge Jerry did his work right. . . . " Woodward further admitted that Hobbs was a satisfactory employee in all other respects prior to his return to the Union in the spring of 1944 while in his material control position, and that it was for his renewed affiliation with the Union that Hobbs was returned to a non-supervisory job in May 1944. Adelsperger, the respondent's treasurer, in his letter of April 10 , 1942, granting Hobbs a leave of absence for union duties , also had noted the "pleasant . . . relations" existing between Hobbs and the respondent . In the late summer of 1943, the respondent indicated its satisfaction with Hobbs by promoting him to the supervisory position in charge of material control. The respondent therefore argues a distinct reversal of the previously existing satisfaction with respect to Hobbs, the alleged undesir- ability coinciding with Hobbs' return to the Union shortly before his transfer from material control. The respondent in asserting the misconduct reasons for discharge , relies upon -conduct which has continued according to the respondent 's witnesses for more than a year prior to the discharge. The respondent had adopted a system of progressively severe penalties for repeated violations of the rules , and it posted notice of such progressive sanctions in the plant from May 3, 1944 , at least until the strike of May and June 1945. Although these rules were still in effect at the time of the strike , the respondent chose not to discipline Hobbs by a lay-off for a short period as provided by these rules for first offenses , but instead discharged him although he had never been disciplined before. Hobbs was first discharged on June 15 , 1945, during a complete shutdown in a period when the only contact the respondent had with him was in his capacity as a union official. Hobbs was the sole employee discharged during the strike. The usual procedure for discharging an employee in the metal shop, as Bothast testified, was for Foreman Bothast to give Production Superintendent Stewart the reasons for dissatisfaction with the man and to agree with Stewart what should be done. Despite this customary procedure, the reasons for the discharge of Hobbs had never been discussed with Bothast, much less initiated by him, before he handed Hobbs the second written discharge notice of July 2, 1945. Bothast's testimony was as follows : Q. Did you tell Jerry when you handed him the discharge that you had been instructed not to discuss it? A. I told him I could not. Q. Why did you tell him that? A. Didn't know myself. I didn't know. I didn't know what the specific charges were. Q. Did you ever discharge a man without telling him why he was dis- charged, before? UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 183 A. I merely carried out an order. Q. You were ashamed to do it, too, weren't you? A. It was in the line of duty. Although Bothast and Stewart were present with Woodward when the dis- charge notice of July 2, 1945, was made out, nothing was said at that time to distinguish Hobbs from the other employees guilty over a long period of mis- conduct offenses. The evidence is clear that numerous employees regularly practiced transgressions such as smoking, loitering,10 crowding near the time clock, absence from overtime work, and use of profanity, but the undersigned find that Hobbs was no more involved than numerous other employees not dis- ciplined, and that such violations were customary. Such evidence as was pro- duced concerning other employees disciplined for improper conduct, indicates that punishment was summarily awarded at the time of the offense and not delayed as in Hobbs' case. The undersigned are impressed by the testimony of the respondent' s witnesses Dewey, personnel manager, Stewart, production superintendent, Bothast, Hobbs' foreman, and Stringari, labor relations counselor, that no recommendation for discharge or other disciplinary action was made by them regarding Hobbs due to the misconduct about which they testified 11 Woodward testified that the likelihood of work stoppages as a result of dis- ciplinary action forced the respondent to close its eyes to some violations of plant rules since about May 1944. However, respondent's exhibit number 8 contains numerous absence offenders who were discharged during 1944 and 1945. More- over, the respondent was not prevented from disciplining others guilty of miscon- duct offenses by fear of a work stoppage during June of 1945 when Hobbs was discharged, because of the shutdown already in effect at that time, yet only Hobbs was discharged during that strike. The undersigned do not undertake to suggest in what manner or whether or to what extent the respondent should discipline Hobbs or its other offenders for misconduct. The facts set forth are some of those which persuade the under- signed to find and conclude that the discharge of Hobbs was not motivated by reasons of discipline but rather by reason of his union activities. That respondent did not single out Hobbs for his personal misconduct is appar- ent from evidence presented by its own witnesses. Woodward testified : Well, I would have to say Jerry was the ringleader on most instances. Smoking in the boiler room, lineup at the clock, loitering around the plant, through the office. On all these things of the rules that have been violated. The meaning of the generalization that Hobbs was the "ringleader" is clarified by Woodward in his further testimony : Smoking was very bad in the plant. Employees fifty and sixty strong would walk into the boiler room and smoke. We did try to get the support of the [Union] committee to help us curb this but we didn't get far. Again, with respect to the respondent's policy to operate on Thursday nights instead of Saturday afternoons, Woodward testified : 10 There is serious doubt that Hobbs was in fact chargeable with loitering without per- mission. Stewart and Bothast admitted they did not order Hobbs to return to his place of work when he was seen elsewhere in the plant Under union contract provisions, Hobbs was permitted to investigate grievances during working hours 11 Moist, a foreman in Hobbs' department under Bothast's supervision, was not called to testify. 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We had 330 employees and it was no unusual thing for 125 to be absent on Thursday night. . . . Jerry's comments when I went to him were "I know what you mean but its nothing I can do anything about." Woodward pleaded with the union bargaining committee for cooperation on this matter three or four times, and received from Hobbs the answer: "I can feel for you but there's nothing I can do about it." 12 The testimony of Stewart, produc- tion superintendent, is similar in tenor : . . . You can't discipline 50 to 15419 employees and continue operating your plant. Q. Well then, you had that many others violating the rules at the same time? A. With leadership. Q. Beg your pardon? A. With leadership. Q. Well, they were your employees, were they not You mean Jerry went around and told each one to violate the rules? A. I don't know that he did that but I know he violated them as a leader. According to these portions of the testimony, the respondent's management object to the failure of the Union, whose leader was Hobbs, to control the em- ployees in the respects specified. The respondent's witnesses in effect testified that they objected not to Hobbs' personal misconduct, but to his position as head of the employee labor organization. But the mass misconduct situation did not license the respondent to discriminate against the union leadership for reasons violative of the Act. 4. Additional special defenses a. Violation of the War Labor Disputes Act The respondent amended its answer on January 8, 1946, for the first time including, as a reason for the discharge of Hobbs, that the Union failed to give 30 days' notice of a labor dispute to the Board, before calling the strike, as required by the War Labor Disputes Act.14 Such notice was not given. However, for the reasons fully set forth in the majority opinion in the Republic Steel case," and reaffirmed in the majority opinion in the Fairmont Creamery case,16 the undersigned find no merit in the respondent's defense. In the instant case, Local 494 of the Union struck on May 25, 1945, to retain the annual termination date of May 24 and to prevent the respondent from altering existing wage rates of its expiring contract. As in the Republic Steel case and the Fairmont Cream- ery case, cited above, there is no contention or showing that the purpose of the strike was illegal, nor is there any assertion of illegality in connection with the strike, except with respect to the failure of compliance with the provisions of the War Labor Disputes Act. 12 As far as Hobbs' personal attendance is concerned, despite absences on many occasions with respondent's leave, the record introduced by the respondent indicates that Hobbs worked overtime on Thursday night only once during the last half of 1944 as compared with 14 such attendances during the 21 weeks of 1945 until the May 25 strike. The im- provement evident in 1945 over 1944, and the failure of the respondent to discipline Hobbs in 1944, convince the undersigned that this is not a true reason for the discharge as alleged by the respondent. 13 There were approximately 400 production employees under Stewart' s supervision. 14 57 Stat 163 '3 Matter of Republic Steel Corporation (98" Strip Mill ), 62 N. L. R. B. 1008. 16 Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 824. UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 185 b. The inquiry concerning one of the respondent 's representatives The respondent further alleges in its answer as a reason for the discharge of Hobbs that by making a written inquiry he had attempted to undermine com- pany representatives and transgress on management prerogatives . The re- spondent introduced a copy of the letter upon which it relies . This letter, dated December 28, 1944, was written by Hobbs as president of Local 494 of the Union and addressed to the Union's own Regional Director. It recited a request that officials of the UAW-CIO "check up on" Nort , the respondent's "newly hired labor counselor from . . . Detroit" who Hobbs believed was the cause of "trouble" in "settling grievances ." Hobbs testified without contradiction, and the undersigned credit, that Stringari and Nort invited inquiry concerning their labor background . In any event, we know of no prerogative of management which would preclude freedom of inquiry concerning management representatives wholly within intra -union channels. Hobbs' inquiry concerning the respondent's representatives was an activity in assistance of his labor organization , and for such assistance employees are entitled to be secure against interference, re- straint, and coercion and against discrimination. c. The failure to arbitrate The respondent alleges as an affirmative defense that the Union was party to an agreement made at the War Labor Board hearing providing that the findings of an arbitration panel would govern Hobbs' right to reinstatement. In its first amended answer, dated January 8, 1946, the respondent alleges that "notwithstanding this agreement, the union arbitrator failed to appear at the arbitration hearing . . The Board's witnesses testified that no such agreement was made by the Union, but that the arbitration was directed by the War Labor Board, and Woodward's testimony is consistent with this interpretation. The undersigned find that neither the Union nor Hobbs agreed to arbitrate his discharge, but that the arbitration was directed by order of an agent of the War Labor Board. The arbitration hearing was set for August 11, 1945. At the respondent's re- quest, the hearing was postponed to August 15, 1945. On that date, the union member of the arbitration panel failed to appear, and the Union refused there- after to proceed with the arbitration. It is not a valid defense, as alleged by the respondent in its answer as amended, that the Union or Hobbs failed to pursue the arbitration procedure, whether or not the Union agreed to it. Under Section 10 (a) of the Act, the power of the Board to prevent unfair labor practices "shall be exclusive, and shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, code, law, or otherwise." i7 Moreover, Section 7 (a) (2) of the War Labor Disputes Act, 57 Stat. 163, limits the War Labor Board's power in deciding labor disputes by requiring its decision to "conform to the provisions of . . . the National Labor Relations Act." On October 18, 1945, an agent of the War Labor Board notified all parties in writing that its policy was to waive jurisdiction in view of the charge filed with the Board in this matter, that it was instructing its arbitrator to withdraw, and that the "National Labor Relations Board will thus have sole jurisdiction over the discharge issue involved in these proceedings." 1* See N. L R B. Y. Newark Morning Ledger Company, 120 P. (2d) 262, 268 (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied 314 U. S. 693. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Conclusions Hobbs has been unquestionably the leading spirit and the leading official of the Union since May 1944, a year prior to his discharge. He was required by Wood- ward in May 1944 to step down from his supervisory position because of his return to the Union. Three strikes and shutdowns occurred during the year preceding Hobbs' discharge, and the respondent considered this recurrent unrest a threat to its business outlook. Woodward not only admitted that he believed Hobbs influential in causing these walk-outs, but frankly testified that he had felt the discharge of Hobbs would remove some of the respondent's worry about further stoppages.18 On the eve of the last strike, Stringari, in Woodward's presence, interrogated Hobbs as to whether he had made, the motion to strike or encouraged it,3D and then threatened Hobbs with reprisals if he were to permit the strike to extend itself over 10 days. During the first days of the last strike, the respondent's president was apprised of Hobbs' support of union negotiations when he heard of Hobbs' remark about "breaking" the Company On the twentieth day of the strike, pursuant to the previous threat of reprisal, Wood- ward sent Hobbs a notice of discharge through the mails mentioning neither the fight which had occurred 2 days before nor the many misconduct charges specified for the first time in the pleadings of this matter and not sustained by the evidence as the reason for Hobbs' discharge It is not in accord with normal industrial practice, and therefore not persuasive of innocent motivation, to discharge an employee suddenly while he is on strike, for reasons of alleged misconduct occurring over the period of the preceding year. It is undisputed that Hobbs' work was always satisfactorily performed and that with respect to the period prior to the industrial unrest since 1944, the respondent does not claim to find fault with Hobbs' conduct. The strike period was employed by the respondent as a convenient time for discharging the presiding officer of Local 494 inasmuch as no further stoppage could result under the circumstances of complete shutdown. 'son the basis of Woodward 's admission that at least one of the motivating causes of Hobbs' discharge was Hobbs' participation in concerted strike activity, we find that the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discour- aging membership in a labor organization , and interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act See Matter of Consumers Research, life, 2 N L. R B. 57, 73; Jfatter of the Dow Chemical Company, 13 N L R B. 993, 1023, enf'd N L R. B. v. Dow Chemical Company, 117 F. (2d) 455 (C. C. A. 6) ; Matter of United Dredging Company, 30 N L. R. B 739, 766 (fn 24) , Matter of Lone Star Gas Company, 52 N. L R B 1058, 1060 ; Cupples Company, Manufacturers v. N L. R. B , 106 F. (2d) 100, 117 (C. C. A. 8) ; Kansas City Power A Light Company v N L R B., 111 F (2d) 340, 349 (C C. A 8) However, the result in the instant case does not rest on this finding alone , but on all the findings and conclusions made is The respondent's brief submitted to the Trial Examiners baldly states (p. 5) : "Again on May 24 , 1945, while Hobbs was President of the local union , he caused another pro- longed work stoppage which lasted approximately eight weeks." [Italics added I Even assuming the materiality of these facts, the evidence indicates that Hobbs was active in negotiating for 2 months to attempt to arrive at an agreement before the May 24, 1945, ex- piration date . He reported all progress to the union membership and received instructions from them. The failure to arrive at an agreement in time and the failure of the manage- ment to present its wage proposals until the last day of the life of the old contract, and the consequent dissatisfaction of the membership was certainly not the fault of Hobbs The dissatisfied membership voted to strike on May 24, 1945 Hobbs, as chairman of the meeting, neither moved to strike nor participated in the discussion. On June 30, 1945, Hobbs, finding the membership opposed to compliance with the War Labor Board 's directive to return to work , relinquished his chairmanship of the meeting to influence and move the membership to resume production . The only further credible evidence concerning Hobbs' antra-union activities is found in the testimony of a welder , Bretz , a reliable witness Con- cerning the May 31, 1944 , walkout of the welders which was joined by Hobbs, Bretz testi- fied that Hobbs was not responsible for this strike. UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC. 187 We conclude further that Hobbs did not assault Stringari at the June 13, 1945, conciliation meeting as the respondent alleges. Stringari assaulted Hobbs on that occasion and both men were injured in the ensuing struggle. Stringari, who would be the management representative most aggrieved by the fight, testified that he personally had nothing to do with Hobbs' discharge, "directly or indirectly," and that he did not recommend it. In view of all the evidence, we conclude that Hobbs was not discharged because of his part in this fight. On the other hand, it is also clear that the fight was an unpremeditated personal clash between Hobbs and Stringari brought on by mutually provoking remarks. The undersigned do not find the respondent responsible for the physical punishment suffered by Hobbs, and it will be recommended accordingly that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent maligned, vilified, assaulted, and beat Hobbs. The reinstatement of Hobbs by the War Labor Board on July 2, 1945, at the termination of the last strike, and his immediate rediseharge, as predicted by the respondent, was merely a reiteration by the respondent of the discharge dur- ing the strike, and for the same reasons The undersigned accordingly find that the respondent on June 15, 1945, and again on July 2, 1945, discharged Jerry Hobbs because of his membership in and leadership of the Union and because of his participation in its activities, thereby discriminating against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned further find that the respondent, by its interrogation of Hobbs concerning whether he moved or encouraged the strike vote at the Union membership meeting of May 24, 1945, and by its threat of reprisal against Hobbs should the strike be prolonged, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the At. B. Alleged unfair labor practices The Board alleged in its complaint that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by maligning, vilifying, assaulting, and beating employees who were officials of the Union. The only evidence presented in support of the averment concerned the June 13, 1945, fight between Hobbs and Stringari. The undersigned find, however, that the evidence does not sustain this allegation. It will therefore be recommended that this portion of the complaint be dismissed. 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, the undersigned will ieeonmieud that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. The unfair labor practices found by the undersigned represent an attempt by the respondent to defeat the right of its employees to engage in concerted 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activities free from unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion and free from discrimination. Leading up to the eventual discrimination, the respond- ent's interrogation of Hobbs concerning his methods of union leadership and its threat of reprisal against him in the event of prolongation of a strike, was unlawful conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act, totally apart from respondent's subsequent discriminatory discharge of Hobbs. By discharging Jerry Hobbs because of his activities on behalf of the Union, the respondent utilized the most effective form of intimidation possible and one which cannot be more violative of the Act 20 That an employer has deliberately resorted to discriminatory discharge, as has the respondent in the present case, indicates not merely his disposition to commit similar acts of discrimination in the future but also (1) his broader and basic "attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally,"" and (2) the consequent likelihood of his resorting to other lesser acts of interference, restraint, and coercion with respect to those rights as guaranteed by Section 7 and protected by Section 8 (1) of the Act in addition to those found above." The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Board's order is coextensive with this threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interde- pendent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac- tices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs com- merce and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It has been found that by discharging Jerry Hobbs, the respondent dis- criminated against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization It will therefore be recom- mended that the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that the respond- ent make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned as wages from July 15, 1945, the date of the first discrimination against him, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings" during said period. It will also be recommended that the respondent post appropriate notices. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the undersigned make the following : CONCLUSIONS of LAw 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jerry Hobbs and thereby discouraging membership in International Union, 20 N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co , 120 F. (2d) 532, 536 (C C. A. 4). See also N. L. R. B v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 116 F. (2d) 350, 353 (C. C. A. 7). 21 May Department Stores Company v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. 22 See N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426, 437. 23 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn- ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R. B., 311 U. S. 7. UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC . 189 United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., the respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed hereby recommend that the respondent, Union City Body Company, Inc., Union City, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile, Air- craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned find will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Jerry Hobbs immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from July 15, 1945, the date of his first discriminatory discharge, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during the period. (b) Post at its plants in Union City, Indiana, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writing, within l en (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the (late of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent has notified said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent maligned , vilified, assaulted, and beat employees who were officials of the Union. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National ' Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 27, 1945, as amended, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such state- ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. THOMAS S WILSON, MILL ARD L. MIDONIc%, Trial Examiners. Dated March 6, 1946. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to recommendations of Trial Examiners of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION , UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL OFFER to Jerry Hobbs immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will make Jerry Hobbs whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. Dated -- -------------------- UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC., Employer. By ----------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.