Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOC•\I, 613, C. I. O. Case No. 6-C-992.-Decided August 26,, 1946 -Mr. Joseph Lepie , for the Board. Messrs. W. J. McGowan and John L. Weddelton , of Milwaukee, Wis., and McCloskey, Best & Leslie, by Mr. Philip X. Ley, of Pitts- burgh, Pa., for the -respondent. Messrs. Dominic F. Dornetto and John M. Duffy, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Union. Mr. Bernard Goldberg, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On November 29, 1945, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease-and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On April 4, 1946, the Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument, in which the respondent and the Union participated. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed! The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and to the extent consistent with the Decision and Order herein, adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications. 1 In addition to the cases cited by the Trial Examiner in support of his rulings excluding evidence bearing on the question of the appropriateness of the unit because such evidence was available and could have been introduced in the previous representation proceeding, see N. L. R. B. V. We8t Kentucky Coal Company, 152 F. (2d) 198 ( C. C. A. 6 ), cert. denied June 10, 1946, 18 LRRM 2104. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 34. 348 / ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 349, 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that, in addition to violating Section 8 (5) by acting unilaterally, the respondent discrim- inated against the inspectors in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act by downgrading them because they had selected the-Union as their bargaining representative. In this case, the very existence of the refusal to bargain, which is also found by our dissenting colleague, tends to confirm the violation of Section 8 (3). The respondent con- cedes the change in status (which included a reduction in wages), and the immediate cause of that change. It admits that the alteration in the terms and conditions of the inspectors' employment was made on August 27, 1945, because the inspectors had selected the Union as their bargaining representative on August 24, 1945, and that if the men had voted against the Union, it would have made no changes. How- ever, it seeks to excuse its action on the ground that its motivation was not to discourage membership in the Union, but to conform the status and functions of the inspectors to the Board's finding in the repre- sentation proceeding 2 that the inspectors were not supervisory or managerial employees and to establish a basis for compliance with the Board's certification. The respondent further attempts to justify its action with the argument that, because of the possible effect on the integrity of their work engendered by their belonging to the union which represents the production workers whose work they inspect, removal of the so-called management and supervisory functions from the inspectors was necessary in order to (a) retain control of inspec- tion by methods essential to the requirements of customers, (b) enable the respondent to minimize the possibility of liability for damage resulting from defective equipment and loss of business due to the same cause, and (c) protect the public interest. As to the respondent's initial justification, nothing in the Board's unit finding required or permitted the respondent unilaterally to alter the terms and conditions of the inspectors' employment. The respond- ent's second alleged justification rests on the assumption that there is a necessary incompatibility between membership in a union and honest performance of duty. Not only has the Board rejected such a conten- tion when it has been explicity made,3 but it is also contrary to the underlying philosophy of the National Labor Relations Act, i. e., that collective bargaining with its necessary concomitant-unioniza- tion-are socially desirable objectives. The purpose of the Act is to protect employees in their right to self- organization, to protect employees from conduct by employers which, 2 Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 63 N. L. R. B 101. 3 See , e. g, Matter of Crucible Steel Company of America, 62 N. L R. B. 1294; Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62 N. L. R B 660; Matter of Tampa Shipbuilding Com- pany, Incorporated, 62 N L R. B. 954 ; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD experience indicates, has a tendency to thwart self-organization. One of the most powerful forms of intimidation is to penalize employees because of their membership in or their activities in behalf of a union. To protect employees against this form of intimidation, Congress spe- rifically made it unlawful for an employer "By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or-any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization." Radically to alter the job content of a position and.to reduce the pay concededly because employees have selected a particular union as collective bargaining agent is to practice the clearest variety of discrimination banned by 'the Act. Such discrimination normally and naturally tends to discourage membership in a labor organization and is therefore an unfair labor practice. Here, to be sure, respondent was seeking to deal with what it considered, or anticipated to be, a management problem. But it is not determinative that the respond- ent may not primarily have intended to discourage membership in the Union. The vice in the respondent's action rests on the fact of dis- crimination.4 Moreover, respondent must have realized that the reduc- tion in status imposed upon the inspectors would, in practical effect, cause them to question their own wisdom at having selected the union as their bargaining representative only 3 days before. In what we have said, we do not mean to imply that the respondent is powerless to protect itself against failure of duty by such employees, or may never take some anticipatory, but non-discriminatory, admin- istrative action to meet certain new problems which may be created by their unionization. Nor need we here decide whether or not some of the minor changes in status which respondent effectuated, if stand- ing entirely alone, would constitute violations of the Act; taken to- gether here they form an indubitably discriminatory pattern. The purpose of the Act is to protect the organizational rights of employees; its purpose is not to protect incompetence, dishonesty or disloyalty. The respondent is as free now as before the passage of the Act to take any disseiplinary action needful against inefficient or collusive inspectors, regardless of the cause of misfeasance. It may take such disciplinary action on an individual basis, or it may, if dereliction of duty becomes so widespread as to warrant such action, reorganize an entire group of employees.' We are faced in the present i 4 See N. L. R. B. v. Gluck Brewing Company, 144 F. (2d) 847 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Hudson Motor Co, 128 F. (2d) 528 ( C. C.'A. 6 ) ; N. L. R. B. v. Star Publishing Co., 97 F. ( 2d) 465 (C C. A. 9). 'The respondent offered to prove (1) that a production employee named Masslon, a former union steward, had been demoted in 1941 because of improper work resulting from his efforts to speed up production to increase his piece-work earnings; and (2) that from November 1944 to March 1945, a group of employees in one of the production departments engaged in a slowdown under the leadership of two union stewards and a-member of the bargaining committee. The Trial Examiner did not commit prejudicial error in excluding this testimony. In the first place, the testimony does not relate to inspectors ; in the 1 ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 351 proceeding with neither individual nor collective failure of duty by the inspectors. There is not a shred of evidence to show that the in- spectors have not faithfully performed or will not faithfully perform their duty despite the fact that they have chosen to join the same union which represents production employees. We cannot assume such dereliction of duty. We do not believe that an employer may right- fully make such an assumption and thereby justify his discriminatory acts. The protection against discrimination by employers for union activity is the bone and sinew of the Act. The whole structure of pro- tection built lip by the Act would collapse if an employer were per- mitted to discriminate against employees, not because of actual dereliction of duty, but because of a speculative belief that membership in a union and honest discharge of the duty owed the employer are incompatible. Here, indeed, the discrimination having occurred on the next working day following the Board election, it was necessarily based so completely upon speculative considerations that, even assum- ing the correctness of some of the general observations contained in the dissenting opinion, they are hardly applicable here.'' TIIE REMEDY The Trial Examiner has recommended that the respondent restore all the employees listed in Appendix A attached hereto to the status they occupied immediately prior to August 27, 1945. We adopt this recommendation with the following qualifications. The evidence is clear that even if the respondent had not committed unfair labor prac- tices, the number of inspectors would have been reduced because of purely economic reasons connected with the cessation of war orders and the conversion to peacetime manufacturing. The evidence is also clear that no discrimination was practiced in selecting individuals for transfer. In these circumstances, the respondent urges that no reinstatement of the transferees be required. The respondent's posi- tion would have merit if it had not been complicated by the creation of additional supervisors to whom were transferred many of the duties and responsibilities performed by the non-supervisory inspec- tors before August 27, 1945. In respect to numbers, the respondent on August 24 had 40 non-supervisory and 2 supervisory inspectors. On October 8 it employed only 28 non-supervisory inspector's but had increased the number of its supervisory inspectors to 9. It is apparent, therefore, that the creation of additional supervisory inspectors has second place, it can hardly be said to indicate a generalized attitude of disloyalty by union members such as to warrant the drastic action taken by the respondent in respect to the inspectors None of it would have tended to show any danger to the respondent's custo- mers or the public interest, or any change in the inspectors' attitude after they chose this union in the Board election. "Nor are "statistics . presented in oral argument" any substitute for evidence 352 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had the effect of reducing the number of non-supervisory inspectors. To what precise extent this has occurred is not possible to determine from the record. - In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to restore to their former status, duties, responsibilities and wage classification, those of the employees listed in Appendix A who are now or would have been employed as inspectors but for the un- lawful discrimination practiced by the respondent. We shall also order the respondent to make whole,all the employees listed in Appendix A for losses suffered as the result of its discriminatory action. In determining the amount of the losses consideration will be given to the factor of economic displacement alluded to above. Nothing in our order shall be construed to require the respondent either to reduce wages or to abolish the additional supervisory in- spectors' positions created since August 27, 1945. We do not here question the right of the respondent, if it so desires, to create an ad- ditional check on the work of its production employees by establishing a new rank in its hierarchy or by enlarging its crew of supervisory inspectors. Our order only requires the respondent to reinstate to their former status, those of the inspectors listed in Appendix A who would have retained their positions if the additional supervisory in- spectors' positions had not been created. In short, while the respondent may retain its additional supervisory inspectors, it cannot do so at the expense of the non-supervisory inspectors. We also expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and rein- statement provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions in. the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent.? 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, Allis-Chalmers Manufactur- ing Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Ma- chine Workers of America, Local 613, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment ; 7 Matter of Wright-Hibbard Industrual Electric Truck Co, Inc, 67 N. L R B. 897. Matter of Bermite Powder Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 678; Matter of Brown's Tie & Lumber Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 637 ; Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 64 N. L. It. B. 824. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 353 (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, C. I. 0., as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 8 (a) Restore to the status they occupied immediately prior to August 27, 1945, those of the employees named in "Appendix A," attached hereto, who are now employed as non-supervisory inspectors or would have been employed as such but for the discriminatory acts of the re- spondent, in the manner set forth in our Decision under the section en- titled "The Remedy"; (b) Make whole each of the employees named in "Appendix A," attached hereto, for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory change in the status of inspectors on and after August 27, 1945, by payment to each of them.of a suns of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the applicable period, less his net earnings during that period; 9 (c) Upon request, bargain collectively in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment with United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's in- spectors at its Bayard, Juniata, Manchester, River-new part and River-old part plants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including senior inspectors and inspectors' assistants, but excluding clerical employees, inspectors who work out of the Pittsburgh plants, the head inspector- metals, the chief inspector, the assistant chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action; (d) Post at its Juniata, Bayard, Manchester, River-new part and River-old part plants at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall after being duly sighed by the respondent's representative, be posted 'The Board expressly reserves the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement provi- sions of the Order if made necessary by a change of circumstances in the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a specific set of circumstances not now appearing. 9In determining the amounts due under this provision of the Order, consideration shall be given to the possibility that some of the employees listed on "Appendix A" might have been discharged or transferred for economic reasons unconnected with the discriminatory acts of the respondent. 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notice to employees are customarily posted. Reason-' able 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 of the Sixth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting in part,: I disagree with so much of the Order as finds a violation of, Section 8 (3) in the transfer of some of the duties of the inspectors to a higher level of supervision. - I agree that Section 8 (5) was violated by this respondent. The problem of defining the scope of the rights of such monitorial employees as guards and inspectors has been one of the most trouble- some which has arisen under the Act in recent years, as a result of the tendency of unions representing the production employees to admit to membership persons whose duties might have an adverse effect upon the standing of the individual employees whose work and conduct they are hired to check. While it has seemed to me that the fiduciary duties vested in supervisors are such an important aspect of their work that this Act should not be construed as permitting them to have bargain- ing representatives affiliated or allied with the bargaining repre- sentatives of the rank and file,11D I have concurred with my colleagues that such considerations were not usually controlling-with respect to monitorial employees.1' However, it must be conceded that monitorial employees do possess some management functions but, generally speak- ing, these are peripheral. In other words, the difference is essentially one of degree. - Nevertheless, I had always assumed that the Board was aware of certain dangers in permitting such employees to have the same bar- gaining representative as the production workers. We have repeatedly insisted upon separate bargaining relationships, not only in our unit findings but in negotiating and grievance procedures. In the leading 10 See Matter of Maryland Drydock Company, 49 N. L R B 733, and my dissenting opin- ions in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L. R B 4, and Matter of Jones t Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L R. B 386 11 See Matter of Yellow Truck and Coach Corp., 39 N. L. R. B. 14, and Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N L R 13 322 In the latter case, we said . . . "While it Is true that management may have partially delegated certain duties to plant-protection employees, this does not, mean that such employees are deemed to be a part of management or should not be regarded as employees within the meaning of the Act. This Board has never held that the acts of plant guards- ai e unfair labor practices which can be imputed to an employer in the absence of circum- stances indicating that the employer authorized or ratified the conduct in question. In this respect, guards and other plant-protection employees are quite dlffeient from - foremen or other supervisory personnel. - ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 355 case on the subject of guards we said: 12 ... We contemplate that the separation of the bargaining units in their negotiations with the Company and their day to day activities will be one of fact, not merely form." There is some doubt as to whether this cautionary language has been effective, is in several recent cases statistics have been presented'in oral argument which have indicated that when monitorial groups have been organized, the number of reports sent in on fellow union members among the production workers has fallen off to a marked degree. Certainly a company like the respondent, which is engaged in the manufacture of machines which would be highly dangerous unless carefully inspected, has every right to guard against the possibility of careless fabrication. As our own decisions imply that there is some danger of laxity when inspectors and production workers belong to the same union, it does not seem to me that the company acted unreason- ably in transferring some of the peripheral (or management) func- tions of the inspectors to a different group of employees, even though the company had not had any actual experience with the catastrophes which might result from any deterioration in the quality of the inspec- tion process. To hold that an employer must show actual experience to warrant a change in his inspection methods under these circumstances would seem an invitation to disaster. This'conlpany has apparently had a classification system in effect for several years which had been approved under the Wage Stabiliza- tion Act. A normal, if not a necessary, consequence of transferring some of the duties of the inspectors elsewhere would therefore involve a certain amount of down-grading. While in the long run this may have the effect of "discouraging membership in a labor organization," it cannot be said on this record that such a result was intended or would even inevitably occur. Accordingly, the portions of the com- plaint alleging violations of subsection 8 (3) should be dismissed. 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, we hereby notify our employees that : We will offer to the employees named below immediate 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 the discrimination. See Matter of Dravo Corporation, supra. 712344-47-vol. 70-24 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We will bargain collectively upon request with United Elec- trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employ- ment or'other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All inspectors at the Bayard, Juniata, Manchester, River-new part and River-old part plants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including senior inspectors and inspectors' assistants, but ex- cluding clerical employees, inspectors who work out of the Pittsburgh plants, the head inspector-metals, the chief in- spector, the assistant chief inspector, and all other supervi- sory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action. The employees to be reinstated and made whole are : Karl Garbo Herbert L. Bolster Hollis W. Markley Joseph Humiloviclt Franklin L. Barnhart Albert H. Mercer Francis E. Sauerburger Charles M. Lavender Charles M. Rhoades Frank E. Zeck Frank J. Domke Robert C. Kerr Edwin J. Means Norman Stone - James R. Headrick Thomas Lyons Joseph M. Stankowski Joseph W. Riding Paul W. Hoffman Frank J. Reffert Paul W. Kifer Leona E. Radick John F. Burke Henry Bachman, Joseph B. Reiss Steven R. Musial Edmund Y. Knight Harold C. Gumbert Aloysius A. Kopycinski Thomas F. Regan Bohdan Yagello William M. Steidle John R. Caye William E. Briggs Anthony Falvo Samuel Woods John J. Sadauskas Richard G. Fleming Carl P. Banks , Bernard C. Fromme Edward H. Sheets Karl R. Braddock 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 ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 357 or condition of employment against any employee because of member- ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. By ----------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT llh. Joseph Lepie, for the Board. Messers. W. J. McGowan and John L. Waddelton, of Milwaukee, Wis., and McCloskey, Best d Lestse, by Mr. Philip X. Ley, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the respondent. - Messrs. Dominic F. Dornetto and John M. Duffy, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Union. 'STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly filed by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the, Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated Septem- ber 18, 1945, against The Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 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), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the re- spondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, the following: (1) that the respondent, by various described acts and state- ments of certain of its officers or representatives, disparaged the Union and discouraged membership therein; (2) that on July 31, 1945, the Board found that all inspectors employed by the respondent at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, plant, with certain exclusions, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining ; (3) that on August 24, 1945, the said inspectors, at an election directed by the Board, selected the Union as their bargaining agent within the said appropriate unit; (4) that about August 27, 1945, the respondent, unilaterally and without prior consultation with the Union, demoted and re- classified 40 named inspectors, for the reason that they had selected the Union as their bargaining representative; and, further, that the respondent thereafter refused to reinstate these inspectors to their former positions; and (5) that on August 27, 1945, on September 11, 1945, and at all times thereafter, the re- spondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of the inspectors, although requested so to do. 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 10, 1945, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted that changes were made in the duties and the wage rates of the inspectors without prior consultation or collective bargaining with the Union, but denied the com- mission of unfair labor practices thereby. The answer further admitted the, selection of the Union as bargaining representative of the inspectors, but denied that the inspectors constituted an appropriate unit, and averred that the Board was without authority so to find. In conclusion the answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon due notice, a hearing was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from October 15 to October 23, 1945, before Charles W. Schneider, the undersigned Trial 'Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by representatives. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues At the conclusion of the hearing, the complaint and answer were amended to. conform to the proof with respect to names, dates, and similar formal variations. A motion by counsel for the respondent, upon which the undersigned reserved Luling, to dismiss the complaint, is hereby denied to the extent that it is incon- sistent with the following findings. All parties were afforded opportunity to argue the issues orally before, and to file briefs with, the undersigned.' Briefs were received from all parties Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUS] NESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company is a Delaware Corporation main- taining plants and offices in Milwaukee and La Crosse, Wisconsin ; Springfield,- Illinois; LaPorte, Indiana: Norwood, Ohio; Boston, Massachusetts ; Oxnard, Califoinia ; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Only the Pittsburgh plant, at which the respondent is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of electrical. transformers and related products, is involved in the present case During the year preceding the hearing, a representative period, the respondent purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Pittsburgh plant raw materials valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which approximately 65 percent was transported to the Pittsburgh plant from States other than the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania. During the same period of time the respondent manufactured at the Pittsburgh plant products valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which approximately- 85 percent was transported from that plant to and through States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning- of the Act. During the course of the hearing counsel for the respondent made a motion to adjourn for a period of 3 weeks in order to file an interlocutory appeal with the Board from rulings- excluding certain evidence offered by the respondent . The undersigned denied this mo- tion. At the close of the hearing the respondent moved to stay any further proceedings, pending the filing of such an appeal This motion was denied . A request by counsel for the Board, made after the respondent had completed its case, for an adjournment to secure- the attendance of a witness for rebuttal purposes , was also denied. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 359 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial' Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and sunlmary of the issue The Pittsburgh Works of the respondent consists of five plants : Juniata, Bay- ard, Manchester, River-new, and River-old, constituting a single operating unit. The respondent's business at the Works consists of the manufacture of electrical transformers and related products. To insure the quality of workmanship on these products, the respondent emplo; s a staff of inspectors. As of the time the present controversy arose, the duties of the inspectors were to inspect, work before, during and after fabrication, and to reject such of it as was unsatisfactory. At that time, this staff comprised approxmiatel^' 40 employees It has since been ,reduced to approximately 28 persons, excluding supervisory employees i , Since January 1938, the production and maintenance employees at the I'itts- ,buirgh Works have been continuously represented by the Union, and are today, by, reason of a certification by the Board and subsequent collective bargaining contracts between the Union and the respondent This certification and the resulting contracts excluded inspectors. among others, from the collective bar- gaining unit' On March 20, 1945, however, the Union filed with the Board a petition for certification as the representative of the inspectors in a bargaining unit separate from the production and maintenance employees. At a hearing held by the Board upon that petition on May 11, 1945, the Company appeared and contested the appropriateness of such a unit on the ground that the inspectors were managerial and supervisory employees On July 31, 1945, the Board issued a Decision and Direr ' s of Election in which it found, contrary to the respondent's contention, inspectors were not supervisory or managerial employees within the ustomary definition of those terms' The Board further found that they ed an appropriate bargaining unit. election conducted, pursuant to the Board's decision, on August 24, majority of the inspectors selected the Union as their bargaining rep- ative On September 7, 1945, no objections having been filed to the ict of the election or to the results of the balloting, the Board certified Jnion as such representative.4 [owever, on August 27, 1945, prior to the certification, the respondent uni- erally, and without consultation with the Union, changed the duties and classification of the inspectors. with resultant reduction in pay, prestige, and the importance of their duties. These changes are more fully discussed at a later point in this Report The present proceeding arise out of this unilateral t 2 The bargaining unit found appropriate by the Board in the proceedings referred to above was based upon a stipulation made at a hearing conducted in 1938 upon the Union's petition for certification There was no dispute as to the unit. No claim of representa- tion was made with regard to the inspectors. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 4 N L. R B. 824. 3 Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 63 N. L. It. B. 101. 4 The results of the election were as follows. For the Union, 28; against the Union, 11. Five ballots were challenged, but were not counted since they could not affect the result of the election. 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD action of August 27. The Board and the Union contend that the respondent thereby discriminated against the inspectors; also that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of the inspectors. The respondent denies these allegations. It contests the appropriateness of the bargaining unit found by the Board and the Board's jurisdiction so to find. As to the alleged discrimination, the respondent contends, in substance, that the reclassification of the inspectors was a nondiscriminatory action de- signed to relieve them of supervisory and managerial functions, and to obviate conflict in their duties engendered by membership in, and representation by, the Union. Though the respondent has been in business for mane years, no previous complaint has ever been issued by the Board charging the respondent with un- fair labor practices. B The appropriate unit and the Union's majority therein As has been indicated, the Board, on July 31, 1945, after a full hearing, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which it found that the following em- i" ployees of the respondent constituted an appropriate bargaining unit : S` All the Company's inspectors at the Bayard, Juniata, Manchester, Rivev- new part and River-old part plants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, includiaig senior inspectors and inspectors' assistants , but excluding clerical em- ployees, inspectors who work out of the Pittsburgh plants, the head inPpec- tori-metals, the chief inspector, the assistant chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom- mend such action. - In the present case,,as it did in the representation proceeding, the respond- ent denied that this unit is appropriate. The ground urged herein is that the inspectors, being managerial and supervisory employees, were "acting in the interest of an employer" within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the and consequently were not employees." In support of this assertion the re offered further evidence in the instant case of the duties and respon of the inspectors as of the time of the representation hearing, for its on the appropriateness of the unit found by the Board. Proof direct same issues had been adduced in the prior proceeding The additional `t offered in the instant case would not have been different from evidence same issues offered in the representation hearing. The proffered evidence variously described by counsel for the respondent as "supplementary," "a tional," and "cumulative." It is conceded that this evidence was available a known at the time of the representation hearing and that full opportunity wil afforded to introduce it at that time. No adequate explanation was offered for the failure to do so. No contention is made that the representation record is de- ficient. The position of the respondent was summed up as follows: Mr. MOGOWAN • (respondent's counsel) : Well, our position is this, 'Mr. Examiner: There was sufficient evidence in the [representation] record for the Board to find that the inspectors were supervisory employees It is clearly apparent to us that they were. The Board, however, has found that they were not, and the Board is wrong Now, it is our intention to go into this matter very, very fully so there can be no misunderstanding on the part of the Board, and I am sure that if the Board has erred it will be only too happy to receive any additional evidence bearing on this point. As I say, ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 361 it is supplementary. Sometimes it is difficult to know what is important and what isn't important, but in view of the findings made by the Board it is quite apparent that the Board has not grasped the situation with respect to inspectors at the Pittsburgh Works, and we just do not want any misunder- standing. We want the Board to be as fully apprised of the facts as it is possible. This evidence was excluded by the undersigned. In the case of Swift and Com- pany,' decided on August 31, 1945, the Board adopted the following language : The respondent contests the appropriateness of the unit found by the Board, urging (a) that plant clerks and standards department checkers per- form management functions; (b) that since an affiliated local of the Union is the recognized bargaining representative of the production and mainte- nance employees at the respondent's plant here involved, it would not effectu- ate the policies of the Act for the Union to represent the employees in the unit for which it was certified; and (c) that, in any event, the said unit is heterogeneous in character. As appears from the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and from the record in the representation proceeding (Case No. 2-R-4409), these precise contentions were raised by the respondent in that case, and there litigated and decided adversely to the respondent In the instant proceeding, the respondent sought to introduce testimony as to the duties and responsibilities of each individual employee who, according to its view, was a member of the unit-at the time of the hearing. This proof was offered by the respondent in support of its position that the unit was 'omprised of management employees. While making its offer, the respondent conceded that proof of the same general character, although less detailed, wets adduced by it in the representation proceeding in which it participated anti was given full opportunity to be heard. Likewise, the respondent con- ceded that the testimony offered by it in the instant proceeding was known to it at the time of the hearing in the representation proceeding and that the witl)lesses who would give such testimony were available at that time. d affirmed the exclusion of the offered testimony in the Swift case. That appears to be controlling here.' stly, the holding of a hearing under Section 9 of the Act for the purpose fining an appropriate bargaining unit would be a useless gesture if factual raised therein can be relitigated upon the issuance of a complaint'for re- o bargain. Congress provided in Section 9 (c) for a hearing for the purpose ducing evidence on questions of representation. Section 9 (c) reads as s: V Whenever a question affecting commerce arises concerning the representa- tion of employees, the Board may investigate such controversy and certify to the parties, in writing, the name or names of the representatives that have been designated or selected. In any such investigation, the Board shall pro- vide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, either in conjunction with a proceeding under section 10 or otherwise, and may take a secret ballot of em- ployees, or utilize any other suitable method to ascertain such representatives. [Italics supplied.] That a proceeding under Section 10 was not intended to provide a second op- portunity to present such evidence, absent a showing of reasonable cause for hav- ing failed to do so theretofore, seems clear, both from the provisions of Section 63 N. L It. B. 718. See : Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N. -L. R. B ., 313 U. S. 146, aff'g 113 F. (2d) 698 (C C. A 8), enf'g 15 N L. R. B 515; Matter of Pacific Greyhound Linea, 22 N. L. It. B. 111. See also , Matter of Armour and Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 1150. 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 9 (c) and from those of 9 (d ) as well. The latter sub-section provides for the use of the representation record in the complaint proceedings.? Considerations of public policy require that when the Board 's authority is in- voked for the determination of an appropriate bargaining unit, it be provided with all the facts necessary to an informed and intelligent discharge of its responsi- bilities. Section 9 so contemplates Indeed, without such requirement, the validity of unit determinations would be clouded with doubt and open at any time to relitigation by employers and labor organizations To permit successive opportunity to adduce unit evidence would tend to render representation proceed- ings meaningless, encourage the withholding of evidence , and invite parties to ignore representation hearings altogether. Orderly administration of the Act would be, in many cases , seriously hampered , and one of the Act's basic purposes- the settlement of uncertainty respecting representation-in large measure frus- trated. In the instant case the proffered evidence was 'available at the time of the representation hearing, adequate opportunity was had therein to present it, and no substantial reason was offered to excuse the failure to do so Under the circumstances, the explanation, in effect, that the evidence was not previously I adduced because the respondent believed that it was unnecessary for the securing ,) of a determination favorable to the respondent , does not constitute adequate excuses Whatever the duties of the inspectors , the Board has found , and it is clear, that they were employees of the respondent within the meaning of Section 2 i(3) of the Act.' It is therefore found that the unit found by the Board in its Eleci- sion and Direction of Election of July 31, 1945 , and set out heretofore, consti- tutes and at all times material herein constituted, an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act . It is further fouled that on August 24, 1945, the Union wa,s the duly .designated bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, and that, pur- suant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was, on August 24, 1945, and at all times thereafter, the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in 7 Section 9 (d) provides as follows : Whenever an order of the Board made pursuant to Section 10 (c) is based or in part upon facts certified following an investigation pursuant to subse of this section, and there is a petition for the enforcement or review of su such certification and the record of such investigation shall be included in t script of the entire record required to be filed under subsections 10 (e) or 10 thereupon the decree of the court enforcing, modifying, or setting aside in whol part the order of the Board shall be made and entered upon the pleadings, testi and proceedings set forth in such transcript. eIt is to be noted that at the representation hearing the Union rested its case after introduction of the formal papers. The Company thereupon rested and moved to dismi the petition on the ground that the burden was on the Union to prove the appropriateness of the unit. The Trial Examiner referred that motion to the Board and proceeded with the hearing by calling witnesses, consisting of officials of the respondent and a representa- tive of the Union, to ascertain the inspectors' duties and responsibilities. In that hearing, during the examination of Chief Inspector Becker, the Trial Examiner asked him the following questions: Q. Now, you have heard Mr. McArn [works manager] testify with relation to the Inspection Department? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was his testimony substantially correct? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Are there any details which you consider should be amplified? A. None, unless you have some. I don't have any offhand that might be amplified. ° The respondent contended in its brief that certain findings of fact made by the Board in its Decision and Direction of Election are not supported by the representation record. The undersigned finds no substantial or material error ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 363 the aforesaid unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, status, classification and other terms and conditions of employment10 After August 24, 1945, changes were made by the respondent with respect to the duties and status of the persons within the appropriate unit. For reasons apparent from the discussion hereinafter, these changes are found to have no effect upon the appropriateness of the bargaining unit or upon the Union' s repre- sentative status. C. The changes in status 1. How the change was effected On August 27, 1945, 3 days after the inspectors had selected the Union as their bargaining representative at the Board-directed election , the respondent uni- laterally , and without consulting the Union with reference thereto, changed the classification and status of the inspectors within the appropriate unit The effect of these changes is discussed hereinafter. On that day the inspectors were called individually to the office of D. G . McArn, works manager, and interviewed by the respondent's labor advisory committee, consisting of McArn, P . E Cooke, chief engineer , and J C. Shupe, works account- ant McArn read or related the substance of the following statement to each of the inspectors. We recognize your right to join or not to join any organization of your own choice. However , you cannot be represented by the Union , and at the same time hold a company job, and exercise management functions which you have '!tone in the past. The Foreman 's Club is made up of several management of Company groups as you know and have known., 'Since you have chosen to be represented by the Union , you have withdrawn fr<bm the Foreman's Club , and you are requested to turn in your Foreman's Chnb badge now, and return to Mr. Becker's [Chief Inspector ] office all other respondent sought to establish, in accordance with the decision of the Board in of Briggs-Indiana Corporation, 63 N L. R. B 1270, that the Union had contracted F epresent the inspectors The contract between the Union and the Company pro- follows his agreement applies only to hourly production and maintenance employees usive of supervisory employees, draftsmen, technical engineers , clerical employees, those individuals in the following classifications : (1) Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents; (2) Foremen and Instructors; (3) Inspectors; (4) Electrical testers; (5) Time study men; (6) Plant watchmen; - (7) Undergraduate student apprentices; (8) Graduate student apprentices ; (9) Confidential employees; and (10) Timekeepers; and all other employees who "act directly or indirectly in the interests of the Com- pany" (within the meaning of such quoted phrase of the National Labor Relations Act) as alread\ determined by the National Labor Relations Board. This clause merely defines the bargaining unit. It is not a covenant to refrain from repre- senting the excluded categories. The Briggs-Indiana case is therefore inapplicable. Parol evidence offered by the respondent as to the interpretation of this section'of the contract was excluded, there being (1) no apparent ambiguity relevant to the present issues; and (2) no clear cut offer to show that the Union agreed not to organize the inspectors 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Foreman's Club material." Your authority to represent Company is auto- matically removed by your 'own choice of representation. Effective immediately you no longer have the authority to accept or re- ject any work which is in question. The Employment Office will issue you a regular factory badge for identi- fication'purposes.12 - The men were then interviewed by Chief Inspector Becker, H. B. Walters, as- sistant works'nianager, and A. F. Anke, superintendent of time study. Becker either read or related to the inspectors the substance of the following statement : Since the inspectors have chosen to be represented by Local 613, they no longer belong to the Company group. The management functions, which have been entrusted to and exercised by them, are removed. Since the management functions are being removed from the job contents of inspector, the job is being reclassified, and Mr. Walters will outline their future duties as inspectors. You will immediately return all instruction sheets, records, forms and other Company property to the Shop Superintendent's office. Assistant Works Manager Walters then outlined their new duties and read or substantially related to the men the contents of the following statement: Effective now, in your job as inspector you will report directly to the fore- man in the department to which you are assigned. You will carry out the foreman's instructions, which will come to ;you from Mr Becker through the shop superintendent and foreman "I I When you have completed jobs assigned to you, you will so indica,ce the completion by writing the words `,'checked by and your name" as instructed (a rubber stamp will be provided for this purpose). You will have no authority to accept or reject any work, which is question- able. I This responsibility is being removed from the job content of in l In checking a job, if you find that it is not in accordance with specii or instructions, you will report this condition to the foreman, who wil' the decision . Since management functions are being removed from t content of inspectors, the jobs are being reclassified with rates accord the value of the job. These new, or changed groups, in accordance with the changed jobs, wi determined within the next day or so, and you will definitely be adv of your new groups and rates. Until then your present rate contend Some of the.men were informed, during these interviews, that they would n longer be known as inspectors, but as checkers. Following the interviews, the indicated changes in status, classification, and rates were made. These are more fully discussed hereinafter. On the same day that these interviews were taking place, August 27, John M. Duffy, vice president of the Union, telephoned Works Manager McArn Duffy 11 The inspectors' membership in the Foreman's Club was considered by the Board in the representation proceeding. Further reference is made to it hereinafter. 12 Works Manager McArn testified that he read this prepared statement to the men. Several inspectors called as witnesses by the Board testified that McArn did not read the statement to them, but that he told them substantially the same things , and that he further said, in substance, that they could not exercise management functions and be members of the Union. The undersigned does not regard this conflict as sibstantial or material. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 365 asked McArn to explain the respondent's actions, related above, with respect to the inspectors, and also requested a conference concerning them. McArn replied that-the actions involved company functions and were none of Duffy's concern, and he refused to meet with Duffy concerning the inspectors. Duffy reminded McArn that the employees had selected the Union as their bargaining represent- ative at the election on August 24. McArn in response reiterated his former statement. Duffy intimated that he had discussed the respondent's actions with the Board's Regional office. McArn replied that Duffy could do as he pleased and terminated the conversation." 2 The result of the change The following changes in the terms and conditions of employment of the inspec- tors resulted froln the shift in status announced by the respondent on August 27. The general effect of the shift was to divest the inspectors of responsibility, and to reduce their privileges, prestige, and wages , Thus, prior to the transfer, inspectors worked under the direct supervision of the Chief and Assistant Chief Inspector and had authority to reject work, subject to review of their decision (upon the request of the head of the department involved) by a committee con- sisting of the department head, a representative,of the engineering department, and the chief inspector In performing his work, the inspector had free access t^) blueprints, specifications, records, and tools which he deemed necessary. At th,e same time he was allowed access to, and the use of, certain offices where such mates ial was kept. In effecting the transfer, a new level of supervision was established, that of inspemtor foremen. The inspector now works under the foreman, who assigns him to spe:ific tasks and supplies him whatever information and tools the foreman deems necessary. Although the inspector continues to determine, in the first instanc^_, whether the product or material meets the required standard, his determi nation is continuously subject to the judgment and direction of the fore- man, he inspector no longer has authority to reject faulty work He simply his findings to the foieiran, who investigates and mikes the decision. pation by inspectors in certain time study functions, in the consideration sous problems of design , and in the determination of causes for failure of ormers built by the respondent, were also eliminated from their duties, and functions transferred to the inspector foremen. In sum, the change in rvision substantially reduced the factors of judgment, discretion, and initi- ve formerly inherent in the inspectors' job. The inspectors were also deprived further access to and use of offices, and the use of company records. Formerly, o, they had been entitled to the use of company telephones, and to be paged on the respondent's buzzer or public address system. These privileges were likewise withdrawn. Formerly, an inspector would, on occasion, temporarily substitute for production foremen when the latter were ill or on vacation. They no longer do so. Prior to the transfer, inspectors were permitted free movement about the shop. Now they are not, in general, permitted access to other departments with- out specific permission from their foremen." Under the former arrangement, in- spectors also made out their own time cards and requisitioned their own supplies. 's The findings as to Duffy 's telephone call are based on the testimony of Duffy and McArn, which is not in dispute. McArn admitted refusing on this occasion to meet with Duffy to discuss the changes being made involving the inspectors. 14 Restriction of the liberty of movement of inspectors is now the general rule. How- ever, Richard Fleming, an inspector in the Bayard plant, testified that about September 6, 1945 , his foreman , Bollman, authorized him to go to other departments of that plant when necessary. 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,The time cards are now made out by the shop clerks, and supplies must be requisi- tioned through the foreman. At the same time the inspectors were deprived of ,membership in the Foreman's Club, an organization of supervisory employees and inspectors whose purpose is the discussion of management problems, This factor of membership in the club, as bearing on the status of the inspectors, was considered by the Board in the representation proceedings, but since it did not appear that the Club assisted in the formulation of labor policy, and in view of other factors, found not to be controlling. Within one or two days after the above changes were made, the inspectors were reclassified in accordance with the decreased content of their jobs, and reduced one or two labor grades. Thus, most of the inspectors were, prior to August 27, classified in labor grade 10, at rates of pay varying from $1.07 to $1.27 per hour. Some of these men were reclassified to grade 9 at $1.06 per hour ; others to grade 8 at 98 cents per hour. The individual loss in hourly wages varied from 6 cents to 21 cents per hour. The average loss was approxi- mately 14 cents. In percentages, the reductions in pay ranged from 5 percent in the lowest bracket to 16 percent in the highest; the average reduction being approximately 12 percent among the re-classified inspectors as a whole 16 3. The request for 'reinstatement On September 7, 1945, as has been indicated heretofore, no objections having been filed to the election results, the Board issued its certification , certifyir1g [hat the Union was the exclusive collective bargaining representative of ,"che inspectors. A meeting between representatives of the respondent and of the ?Union was held on September 11. At this meeting the union representatives requested that the transfer be rescinded , that the inspectors be returned to their/ former status, and that any question regarding their classification be discuss^d as a matter of collective bargaining. Works Manager McArn, for the respondent, replied, in substance , that the inspectors had been properly reclassified! and he intimated that, so far as he was concerned, they were now covered by the between the Union and the respondent for the production and main' employees. McArn's position, in sum, was that the transfer was an accom fact and would not be negotiated. The Union reiterated its demand, reiterated his position, and the conference terminated. There have b further negotiations between the parties with regard to the inspectors. D. Conclusions as to unfair labor practices The respondent asserts that the changes in the inspectors'- status were effecte in order to remove the supervisory and managerial factors from the inspectors' jobs so as to protect the respondent and the public,16 to conform their duties la The rate of pay of two inspectors, J. Sadauskas and J. Stankowski, was apparently not changed. Their classification was respectively, labor grade 7 at 92 cents per hour, and grade 5 at 80 cents per hour. Early in September, however, along with several other inspectors, Sadauskas and Stankowski were transferred to the production department as a result of a, reduction in the inspection staff. Sadauskas was then reduced to grade 5 at 80 cents per hour. Both quit shortly thereafter The effect of the reduction on the present issues is discussed in the icmedy section hereinatter. 16 Thus, in its brief, the respondent states the following : "Removal of management func- tions and supervisory status from the inspectors was necessary in order (1) to retain control of inspection by methods essential to the requirements of customers, (2) enable the respondent to minimize possibility of liability for damage, or loss of business, due to failure of equipment by having final inspection controlled by direct management repre- sentatives, and (3) to protect the public interest." ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 367 to the B6ard's finding that they were non-supervisory and non-managerial em- ployees, and to obviate conflict with their duties engendered by representation by Local 613. The respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices by reason of the transfer, and denies that its purpose was to discourage membership in the Union or to interfere with the inspectors' selection of a bargaining agent. It is clear, however, from the respondent's contentions them- selves, from the August 27 statements to the inspectors, referred to above, from the testimony of Works Manager Mc Arn, and from the respondent's brief, that the inspectors were reclassified because the respondent believed their status to be incompatible with affiliation with and representation by Local 613." It is thus evident that the transfer was the direct result of the inspectors' having chosen Local 613 as their bargaining representative, and that but for that selec- tion the reclassification would not have been effected. The Board has recently had occasion, in the case of General Motors Coipora- tion,'8 to pass upon the legality of a change in status of employees based upon the motivation that they had selected a bargaining representative. In holding that such a factor was a discriminatory consideration the Board adopted the following language: such a circumstance [that the employees had selected a bargaining agent] is not a proper factor to be considered by an employer in the estab- lishment or revision of working conditions and terms of employment. Uni- lateral changes in employment status made by an employer based on the exercise of the right to act collectively, are repugnant to the basic purposes of the Act, are per se at variance with the interdiction in Section 8 (3) against discrimination in regard to hire, tenure, and conditions of employment, and an inevitable deterrent to, and interference with, the exercise of the right to '• self=organization guaranteed in Section 7 [of the Act]. That case involved the transfer of employees from a salaried to an hourly status base upon the employer's asserted conviction that designation of a bargaining t by the employees was incompatible with their status. In that respect it is stinguishable from the instant case. It need hardly be emphasized that if ,tinctions in status can be drawn because of an employer's belief in the incom- tability of the status with the fact of designation of a bargaining agent, or of uarticular bargaining agent, the right of free selection which the Act seeks, in plicit terms, to protect, is largely illusory. That the possibility of incurring advantageous revision in status and conditions of employment solely as a conse- ence of having exercised the right of,selection would deter the exercise of the fight is too plain to require demonstration. As has been indicated, however, the respondent denies that its motive was to discourage union membership or to interfere with the employees' statutory rights. That the respondent was honestly convinced of the legality of and the necessity for its conduct may be assumed. But specific desire to prevent the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Act, or to discourage union membership, is not the exclusive criterion for determining the validity of an employer's actions. Thus, Section 8 (3), for example, prohibits discouragement of union membership by discrimination in employment. Where union membership or designation are "Thus McArn testified that had not the inspectors selected Local 613 as their bargain- ing representative, there would have been no changes in their duties or status, "for the simple reason that there would have been no certification and they would have remained [as] supervisory employees" It was also stated during the hearing that "* * * the Company * * * [had] no choice but to remove from the inspectors their super- visory authority status in order to correct a situation wherein membership in or repre- sentation by Local 613 will not interfere with the proper discharge of their duties." 28 59 N L R. B. 1143, enf'd 150 F. (2d) 201 (C. C. A. 3). 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD factors contributing to the decision to discriminate , intent, if a necessary element, is to be inferred. That the consequences of the respondent 's actions in the instant case were discouragement of union membership requires no illustration. The immediate result was reduction of duties , and loss of wages, privileges, freedom of movement, and intangible but no less important factors such as responsibility and prestige. There was thus discrimination in the inspectors ' conditions of employment, motivated by the fact that they had selected the Union as their bargaining representative. The respondent's conviction as to its non-discrimina- tory motive and its belief in the legitimacy of its ultimate purpose made the transfers no less discriminatory or the discouragement less effective. It can scarcely be doubted that an employer's declaration to his employees that if they designated a particular bargaining, representative it would be necessary for him to abolish their positions, would be an unfair labor practice . Manifestly, the execu- tion of such a design is equally so . Ecofomic motives or assumed administrative necessity do not justify violation of the Act 1° That the inspectors were, in the respondent 's view, supervisory employees, is immaterial. The Board has found that they were not. But even if they had been, they were nevertheless employees within the meaning of the Act, and the respondent had no right to discriminate against them on the basis of union mem- bership or designation 21 Similarly inapposite is the respondent 's contention , asserted in its brief, that the reduction in wages was not discriminatory for the reason that it was "com- mensurate with and incidental to removal of management functions and necessary; to avoid distortion of the respondent 's wage structure * * *" This, in e°- sence, is an assertion that because its discrimination made the loss of wades inevitable, the respondent is not responsible for the latter consequence . Having: effected the discrimination , however, the respondent cannot avoid responsibiljty for its results . This contention of the respondent 's is found to be without m(f it However, irrespective of whether or not its conduct be considered discrim (na- tion and discouragement, and thus within the purview of Section 8 (3), the respondent's actions were equally proscribed by Section 8 (1), prohibiting in' ference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise, inter alia, of rO In N L R B v Hudson Motor Co., 128 F ( 2d) 528 (C C. A. 6), the Court stated We think it right and just to say that so far as the record shows, respondent has n wilfully violated the provisions of the Act, but the intent of the employer is not wit the ambit of our power of review. When it is once made to appear from the prima facts that the employer has violated the express provisions of the Act, we may inquire into his motives In N L R B v Star Publishing Co, 97 F (2d) 465 (C C. A. 9), the Court said The respondent further contends that it was necessary to make the transfer, and thus engage in the unfair labor practice, because its business would otherwise be disrupted, and, therefore , tinder all the facts , the transfer was excusable we think , however, the Act is controlling. The Act prohibits unfair labor practices in all cases It per-- niits no immunity because the employer may think that the exigencies of the moment requite infraction of the statute. In fact, nothing in the statute permits or justifies its violation by the employer And see N L. R B v. Gluck Siewuig Company, 144 F. (2d) 847 (C C A 8), wherein it was stated [The employer's] action was motivated, in large part if not entirely, by the purpose of avoiding disruption and loss of business * * * It is clear that it had no pur- pose-in the sense of animus or desire-to injure one or to help the other [of two labor organizations involved]. Its underlying and compelling purpose was to save itself. But to accomplish this result, it consciously interfered in a labor situation by actively favoring one union over another This was properly held by the Board to be an unfair- labor practice under the Act because economic interests of an employer are not valid! reasons for violation of the Act. See also Matter of A J. Showalter Company, 64 N L. R. B. 573. 10 Matter of Sass Manufacturing Company, at al., 56 N. L. R. B. 348. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 369 rights of self-organization and adherence to labor organizations 81 Clearly, the change in status of the inspectors, based, as it was, upon the fact of designation of Local 613, constituted and is hereby found to have been, an interference with, and restraint and coercion upon, the inspectors' right to a free selection of a labor organization and a bargaining agent. The validity of the respondent's conduct does not, moreover, turn upon those considerations alone. In deciding upon and in executing the transfer unila- terally, the respondent evaded the affirmative obligation cast upon it to bargain with the Union as the statutory representative As has been found, the inspec- tors were employees within the Act. However their status be characterized, it represented the sum total of their terms and conditions of employment. The respondent was obligated to bargain collectively with the Union respecting that status This it did not do. Instead, with the knowledge that the inspectors had designated the Union as their bargaining agent, the respondent unilaterally changed their status and duties, substantially revised the conditions and preroga- tives of their employment, and reduced their pay. When the Union. on August 27, 1945, requested a meeting for the purpose of discussing these revisions, the respondent refused on the ground that they involved a company function and were' none of the Union's concern Even if it be assumed that the respondent was under no affirmative duty to bargain with the Union until the Board had issued its certification (which the Board did on September 7), the respondent's action on August 27 constituted an anticipatory refusal to bargain, The re- pondent then knew that the Union would ultimately be certified.' To permit with that knowledge, to snake unilateral changes in the conditions of employ- ient of the inspectors and thus to present the Union with a fait awconlph, would 'nder nugatory a basic objective of the Act, namely. the negotiation of terms of ,fu -e and tenure The undersigned finds that such conduct constituted a refusal bargain in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act.R3 In any event , even if the sal to discuss the issue prior to September 7 were not deemed a refusal to oargain, the respondent's insistence, on September 11, that the change was an accomplished fact, its refusal to consider rescission , and its declination to nego- tiate the question of classification, constituted such a refusal As has been in- dicated, the respondent urged that the transfer was occasioned by its convic- tion that representation by the Union was incompatible with the inspectors' duties Even if that conviction were sound, it would not validate the unilateral method employed by the respondent to implement it. However, as has been keen, the contention is not in any event a valid defense : the Board has already considered it and found it to be without foundation in fact; and, it is to be observed that the contention itself is incompatible with the basic premises of the Act 21 Section 7 provides as follows Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join. or assist labor or- ganizations , 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. It is to be noted that the respondent filed no objections to the conduct of the election or to the results of the balloting. 23 The affirmative character of the respondent 's actions during the interval between the election and the certification takes this case out of the operation of the principle enunciated in .platter of H. G. Hill Stores, Inc, 49 N L. R B 184. In that case the mere refusal to ham gain with a union pending the issuance of the Board's certification, unaccompanied by affirmative action, of the kind here present, preventing effective operation of, and depriving the Union of the benefits of, the certification, was, in the circumstances there present, held not to constitute violation of Section 8 (5) 370 ' - e DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It may be that the certification of the Union as the representative of the in- spectors makes it desirable for the respondent and the Union to reexamine their existing relationship and arrive at an understanding with regard to the inspec- tors' duties and responsibilities. As to this the undersigned expresses no opinion. But the respondent's action in effecting the transfer in complete disregard of the employees' representative, and in declining to reconsider it thereafter, prevented any such agreement being reached Whatever the respondent's justifi- cation, or problem, it should have been addressed in the first instance to the employees' bargaining agent. Nothing less is contemplated by. the Act. As the Board said in the case of General Motors Cos pox atson, su pi a : Compliance with the law required that before the transfer was executed, it be negotiated with the bargaining representative. But the respondent proceeded to effect it without notice to the Union. Instead, the employees were merely informed individually that the change would be effected. How- ever pure the respondent's motives may have been, this unilateral action clearly constituted a by-passing of the collective bargaining representative and a resort to individual action u The respondent urges in its brief that it has at all times been, and is now, ready and willing to bargain with the Union for the inspectors "as non-supervisory employees," that is, on the basis of their present status. It may be assumed that the respondent is prepared to bargain with the Union on its on terms The issue however, is whether it was required to bargain with the Union on th basis of the unit found appropriate by the Board The undersigned finds that i was. It is therefore found that because they had designated the Union as the' bargaining representative, the respondent altered the status of its'inspecto the employees named in Appendix "A," attached hereto, and changed their ter and conditions of employment, and thereafter refused, upon request, to resto those employees to their former status. It is further found that this transfe_ was effected unilaterally and that the respondent, on and after August 27, 1945, refused to bargain collectively with the Union, as the designated representative, concerning the inspectors. It is found that by these -actions the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure and terms and conditions of employment of its employees, discouraged membership in the Union, and inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. E. Alleged unfair labor pi acttces The Board alleged, additionally, that Works Manager McArn and Chief In- spector Becker discouraged union activity and disparaged the Union by certain statements made in about March and May 1945. Some testimony was intro- duced in support of these averments The undersigned finds, however, that the evidence does not sustain the allegations. It will- therefore be recommended that they be dismissed. For the purpose of showing the incompatibility of the inspectors' status with iepie- sentation by the Union, and its own non-discriminatory motives, the respondent offered to prove that from November 1944 to March 1945 a slow-down, designed to secure an increase in piece rates, took place among the production einplovees, that this slow-down was with the acquiescence and participation of union representatives in the production department; and that pressure was brought to bear on employees to slow down. Apart from the fact of its remoteness to the present issues, and apart from the additional consideration that the argument, if relevant, is applicable to the inspectors even in their present status, the problem is one to be remedied by disciplinary action at the time it arises, and not by unfair labor practices in anticipation of it. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABORPRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 371 The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, A-D, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that by changing the status of the inspectors the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure and terms and conditions of their employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union. In order to remedy effectively such unfair labor practices it is necessary that the employees be restored to their former status and be compensated for any losses they sus- twined thereby. It has also been found that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, and, in addition, by reason of the unilateral character of the transfer, by its refusal to negotiate with the Union concerning the transfer and the classi- fication of the inspectors, refused to bargain collectively with the Union. Ir- respective of which subsection of Section 8 these acts are found to violate- whether Section 8 (1), (3) or (5) -the nature of the unfair labor practices is such as to require, in any case, restoration of the original status and compensation for any losses occasioned by the transfer 25 It will therefore be reconunended that the respondent restore all the em- ployees named in "Appendix A" hereof to the status they occupied immediately prior to August 27, 1945, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union. It will also be recommended that the respondent make whole each of said employees for any monetary losses which he incurred as a result of the unfair labor practices, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from August 27, 1945, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period 2° Following August 27, a reduction occurred in the total number of inspectors. In effecting this reduction, some of the inspectors were transferred to other departments and to different positions. Some of them then quit. The transfers, according to the respondent's credited testimony, were made according to seniority. The respondent asserts that the reduction in force was the result of a decline in operations That such decline occurred and made reductions nec- essary, is clear. However, some of the reduction is undoubtedly also attributable to the change in status, since, in the process of, reclassification, some of the inspectors' functions and work were transferred to the newly created supervisory group As of October 8, these new supervisors constituted about 30 percent of the inspection working force. Most of them were brought in from the production 15 See Matter of General Motors Corporation, supra. Thus, It is to be observed that such a remedy is necessary , tor example, to remedy the unfair practice involved in the transfer. Otherwise a bargaining representative would be faced with a fait accompli as a result of unilateral action, and the employer left in possession of the fruits of unfair labor practices '0 As to the definition of the term "net earnings" see Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R. B. 440, and Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. 712344-47-vol. 70-25 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and maintenance department, where they had been foremen The relative extent to which these two factors may have been operative in the reductions cannot, of course, be ascertained. It is therefore impossible to say liow many jobs would presently be available for inspectors had the reclassification not occurred Even if it be assumed, however, that the entire reduction was the result.of the decline in operations, it is nevertheless still speculative whether any transfers would have been effected had the respondent not acted unilaterally, and if so, which of them. Collective bargaining may have resulted in any of the following pos- sibilities: (a) that reductions could have been avoided; (b) the selection of different individuals from those chosen; or (c) more attractive employment for those selected. The respondent's actions have made it impossible to say now what the result would have been absent the unfair labor practices It is there- fore recommended that the respondent restore the status of all the employees named in "Appendix A" and reimburse them all for any losses occasioned by the -unfair labor practices. If, after restoration, insufficient positions are available for all the persons named, the jobs can be allocated. pursuant to collective bargaining, in a non-discrimniatory manner accordnig to the respondent's usual method of effecting reductions, or such niethod'as can be agreed upon. The amount of back pay, if any, due employees can be ascertained upon compliance if the parties are unable to reach agreement 'thereon.-'-' Nothing in these recommendations, however, shall be construed to require the respondent to reduce the pay of any employee whose wages may have been increased by reason of, or since, the transfer. 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 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All inspectors at the respondent's Bayard, Juniata, Manchester, River-new part and River-old part plants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including senior in- spectors and inspectors'- assistants, but excluding clerical employees, inspectors n Included in "Appendix A" is the name of Leona E. Radick, named in the complaint as one of the inspectors whose status was changed at the time of the general reclassifica- tion. A list of the inspectors as of August 27, 1945, provided by the respondent pursuant to subpoena, and introduced into evidence, does not include Radick's name as among the inspectors on that date. The omission is not explained It may be due to inadvertence Thus, the respondent's answer does not deny the assertion.in the complaint that Radick was among the demoted group. In addition, Robert Kerr's name is also omitted from the list of inspectors supplied by the respendent Other exhibits provided by the respondent, however, disclose that Kerr was among the inspectors' group on' August 27 and was re- classified along with the others. His omission from the first list is evidently the result of inadvertence. Upon these ' considerations Radick's name has been included in "Appendix A." The respondent's list also discloses that two persons not named in the complaint were employed as inspectors on August 27 : Norman Stone and Thomas Lyons Other exhibits disclose that Stone was reclassified along with the others. There is no further explanation as to Lyons. If Lyons was an inspector on August 27, he was presumably reclassified The record does not disclose why Lyons and Stone were not included in the complaint Since this was a mass discrimination, and the case was litigated on that basis, and since it is necessary to restore the appropriate unit as it existed on August 27, 1945, in order to effectively remedy the discrimination, the interference, restraint and coercion, and the refusal to bargain, the names of Lyons and Stone have also been included in Appendix A " If Radick, Lyons and Stone were not reclassified with the others, appropriate correction may be made in the compliance stage of the proceedings. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 373 who work out of the Pittsburgh plants, the head inspector-metals, the chief in- spector, the assistant chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute, and at all times material herein constituted, a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, was on August 27, 1945, and at all times thereafter, and is now, the exclu- sive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, status, classification, and other terms and conditions of employment. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit, thereby discouraging mem- bership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respondent has en- gaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio & Ma- chine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8' (5) of the Act 6. 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 7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that The Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or ally other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatmg in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment, or any term or condition of em- ployment ; (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the re- spondent's employees in the appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, status, classification, and other terms and conditions of employment ; (c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the' right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 613, 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 purpose of collective bargain- ing, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. • 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies' of the Act. (a) Restore to the status they occupied immediately prior to August 27, 1945, all the employees named in "Appendix A" attached hereto ; (b) Make whole all such employees for monetary losses sustained as a re- sult of their change in status on or about August 27, 1945; (c) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Electrical, Radio & Ma- chine Workers of America, Local 613, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appro- priate unit; (d) Post at its Juniata, Bayard, Manchester, River-new, and River-old part plants at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Re- gional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the re- spondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and maintained, by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 Sixth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that in March and May 1945, D. G McArn, Works Manager, and A. J. Becker, Chief Inspector, made statements disparaging the Union and discour- aging union activity. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring .the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided ill Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, Series 3,'as amended, effective July 12, 1944, 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 statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the'other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. 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 within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. CnARLES W.-SCIINEIDF,R, Trial Examiner. Dated November 29, 1945. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY APPENDIX A NoiICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 375 Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 613, C. I. 0, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage. in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without 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 the discrimination. We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclush e representative of all employees in the bargaining. unit des- cribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody, such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All inspectors at the Bayard, Juniata, Manchester, River-new part and River-old part plants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including senior inspectors and inspectors' assistants, but-excluding clerical employees, inspectors who work out of the Pittsburgh plants, the head inspector-metals, the chief inspector, the assistant chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. The employees to be reinstated and made whole are: Karl Garbe - Herbert L. Bolster Hollis W. Markley Joseph Humilovich Franklin L. Barnhart Albert H. Mercer Francis E. Sauerburger Charles M. Lavender Charles M. Rhoades' Frank E Zeck Frank J. Domke Joseph W. Riding Edwin J. Means James R. Headrick Joseph Al . Stankowski Paul W. Hoffman Paul W. Kifer John F. Burke Joseph B. Reiss Edmund Y. Knight Aloysius A. Kcpycintiki Bohdan Yagello John R Caye Anthony Falvo John J. Sadauskas Carl P. Banks Edward H. Sheets Frank J. Reffert Leona E . Radick Henry Bachman Steven R Musial Harold C. Gumbert Thomas F. Regan William M. Steidle William E. Briggs Samuel Woods Richard G. Fleming Bernard C . Fromme Karl It. Braddock Robert C. Kerr Norman Stone Thomas Lyons 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. THE ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. Dated ------------------ By ------------------------------ -------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act ' after discharge from the armed forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.