General Electric X-Ray Corp.

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORUORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 13-C4902.-Decided February 11, 1948 Mr. Herman J. DeKoven, for the Board. Messrs. Richard McAvoy and Thomas M. Kerrigan, of Putney, Twombley, Mall cC Skidmore, of New York City, for the respondent. AIr. Frank Allen, of Chicago, Ill., and Messrs. Seymour Linfleld and David Schreiber of New York City, for the UE. DECISION AND ORDER On November 21, 1946, Trial Examiner Isadore Greenberg issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached Hereto. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions, with a supporting brief, to the Intermediate Report. On October 23, 1947, the Board, at Washington, D. C., heard oral argu- ment in which the respondent and the UE participated. The parties were given leave to file supplemental briefs and the respondent filed one. 'The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and briefs, the contentions advanced by the respondent and the UE at the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions: 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner in concluding that the com- pany acted at its peril in discharging the six employees when the facts did not warrant the dismissals, and may claim no immunity under the terms of the maintenance-of-membership provision of the 76 N L. R. B., No 11. 64 GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 65 contract. The latter, which must be strictly construed,' specifically exempted employees resigning during the escape period from the ef- fect of its provisions and therefore did not authorize, much less re- quire, the discharges. Whether the respondent had knowledge or was put on notice of the possibility that the employees had duly re- signed from the JAM is entirely immaterial and irrelevant. Further- more, additional reason for a literal application of the maintenance- of-membership provision appears from the circumstance that the respondent, fearful of a strike if it did otherwise, had decided, in its own self-interest, to fulfill the TAM request to discharge the employees regardless of what the actual facts as to membership might be. 2. As the contract accorded the respondent no immunity for the discharges, respondent's defense that it was entitled to rely on the IA-Al's representations without inquiring further, because such in- quiry would have constituted intrusion into a union's internal affairs, was clearly inadequate. Moreover, it is evident that the respondent's difficulty was not as great as it would have it appear. The respondent, apprised months before of the fact that the employees involved were important representatives of a rival organization, the UE, and faced at the time of discharge with the protestations of these employees that they had effectuated timely resignation from the TAM and their proffers of postal registry receipts in corroboration, had reason to believe that there might be irregularity in the request of the TAM for their discharge. However, the respondent never demanded an ex- planation from the TAM. Such an effort to clarify the situation, clearly called for Linder the circumstances (in no sense an inquiry into the reason and justification for expulsion of employees from union membership), would have been comparable to the act of an employer, faced with a request to bargain with a union claiming to be majority representative of its employees, asking in good faith for proof of such majority as a prerequisite to its acting to bargain. Such request, recognizably proper, has never been deemed an intrusion into union internal affairs. So far as the contract was concerned, the respondent could have refused to discharge the employees, taking the position that so far as appeared, the TAM was seeking through the company to coerce employees contrary to an express prohibition con- tained in the agreement, and leaving the TAM to handle the matter as a grievance insofar as it sought to enforce the maintenance-of- membership provision of the contract. The facts would then have been developed and the discriminatory discharges could have been avoided since, as respondent admits in its brief, I Fleming V. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co,-112 F. (2d) 53, 56 (C C. A 8). 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A proper formal review [under the grievance procedure] could very well have forced the IAM to disclose all the reasons why it had twice certified to the respondent that the six (6) employees were subject to the contract. Nor were the six employees obligated to file grievances, as the re- spondent contends. As already noted, it is clear that the.respondent acted as it did, not because of the employees ' omission to resort to the grievance procedure provided by the contract had "lulled" it into believing that the employees' claim of timely resignation from the IAM was without foundation, as it claims, but because it feared the IAM threat of a strike if it failed to make the discharges. In view of the record, there can be no question but that the respondent under- stood that all was not well as to the IAM claim of continued member- ship by the six employees subsequent to the escape period of the con- tract. Furthermore, it would have been fruitless for the employees to file grievances; the respondent itself precluded them from doing so by its declared attitude in disregarding their showing as to due resignation and, in one instance, by its specific advice to an employee that his sole recourse was under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Moreover, the public right involved was beyond the power of any employee to jeopardize through failure to resort to a contractual remedy. N. L. R. A. Sec. 10 (a). 3. Respondent argues in its supplemental brief that the new proviso to Section 10 (c), which states that back pay "may be required of the employer or labor organization , as the case may be, responsible for the discrimination," means that the Board may order back pay only against the one party which is "responsible"; that the TAM was "re- sponsible" for any discrimination which might be found herein; and that, accordingly, no back-pay order may be entered against re. spondent. Respondent's construction of the proviso apparently would preclude the Board in any case from determining that a union which instigated and an employer who committed an act of discrimination were both "responsible," and would require the Board to select the party deemed most responsible and direct back pay only against that party. It is not necessary, however, in order to dispose of this case, to determine the meaning of the proviso in this respect . It is clear to us that the proviso has no impact on this case . The proviso must be read in the entire context of Section 10 (c), which deals with the kind of remedial orders which shall or may be entered by the Board against "any person named in the complaint" who is found guilty of unfair, labor practices. The respondent is the only person alleged in the complaint to have committed an unfair labor practice; it is the only person that can be deemed "responsible" for the discrimination GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 67 found.2 The proviso is intended to provide for cases arising under Section 8 (b) of the amended Act (which might, perhaps, be consoli- dated with cases under Section 8 (a) ), where a labor organization is "named in the complaint" and is found to have committed an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8 (b). It cannot be given retro- active effect to govern conduct occurring and a complaint issued in 1946. 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, General Electric X-Ray Corporation, and its officers, agents, successors , and assigns shall 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging nienlbarship in United Electrical, Radio & Ma- chine Workers of America , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , or in any other labor organization of its employees, and encouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, District No. 8, Ray-Point Local No. 1696, or in any other labor organi- zation of its employees , by discharging or in any other manner discrim- inating in regard to the hire or tenure of eniployinent or any term or .condition of employment of any of its employees, unless obligated to do so by the terms of a valid contract then existing between the re- spondent and a labor organization of its employees ; (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to join or assist United Elec- trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations , or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining, or other mutual aid or protection, by in any manner warning any of its employees to maintain their membership in International Association of Machinists , District No. 8, Ray-Point Local No. 1696, or in any other labor organization , or in any manner threatening to discharge them for their failure to do so, unless such employee or employees shall be obligated to do so under the provisions of a valid contract entered into by the respondent with such labor organization. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 2 The IAM was not charged in the complaint with the commission of an unfair labor practice in connection with the events of this case , nor could it ever be in the future in any other complaint. assuming that any of its acts might presently constitute unfair labor practices, because at the time of such events the original Act did not recogm e unfair labor practices by unions 781902-48-vol. 76-6 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offer Mack K. Denis , Frank Fenrich, Frances Havalka, Oscar Olson, Andrew Amrich, and Anton J. Straka, immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Mack K. Denis, Frank Fenrich, Frances Havalka, Oscar Olson , Andrew Amrich , and Anton J. Straka for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina- tion against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he or she would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his or her discharge from the respondent's employ to the date of the respondent 's offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings during said period; (c) Post immediately at its plant at Chicago , Illinois , copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's repre- sentative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A No-, ICE 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 : AVE WILL NOT discourage membership in UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH TIIE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other labor or- ganization of our employees, or encourage membership in INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 8, RAY-POINT 3In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order" the words "Decree of The United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing." GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 69 LOCAL No. 1696, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or in any manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of any of our employees, unless we are obligated to do so by the terms of a valid contract then existing between ourselves and a labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain,, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO 16"- MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, by in any manner warning any of our employees to maintain their membership in INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 8, RAY- POINT LOCAL No. 1696, or in any other labor organization, or in any planner threatening to discharge them for their failure to do so, unless such employee or employees shall be obligated to do so under the provisions of a valid contract entered into by us with such labor organization. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privi- leges previously enjoyed, and make then whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. Mack K. Denis Oscar Olson Frank Fenrich Andrew Amrich Frances Havalka Anton J. Straka GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION, Employer. By ------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- 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 Mr Herman J. DeKoven, for the Board. Messrs, Richard McAvoy and Thomas M. Kerrigan, of New York, N. Y., for the respondent. Mr. Frank Allen, of Chicago, Ill., for the UE. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a first amended charge filed August 20 , 1946, by United Electrical, Radio Machine Workers of America, CIO, herein called the BE, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board , by its acting Regional Director for the Thir- teenth Region ( Chicago , Illinois ), issued its complaint dated August 21, 1946, against General Electric X-Ray Corporation , herein called the respondent , alleg- ing that the respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449. herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance : (1) that the respondent, on or about May 13, 1946 , discharged employees Frank Fenrich, Andrew Amrich , Oscar Olson , Mack Denis , and Frances Havelka,' and on or about May 14, 1946 , discharged employee Anton Straka, and has since refused to reinstate them , because they refused to join 'or maintain their membership in International Association of Machinists , District No. 8, Ray-Point Local No. 1696, herein called the IAM, and that-by such acts the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the said employees , thereby encouraging membership in the IAM and discouraging membership in the BE , all in violation of Section 8 ( 1) and (3) of the Act; and (2 ) that the respondent , in violation of Sec- tion S ( 1) of the Act, has since on or about July 29, 1946. urged employees to join or maintain their membership in the IAM, and has threatened employees with discharge if they failed to do so, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coei sing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaianteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the notice of hearing thereon, and the first amended charge, were duly served upon the respondent , the BE, and the IAM In its answer , filed September 4, 1996 , the respondent denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices . As an affirmative defense, the respondent pleaded the existence of a maintenance :of-membership contract with the IAM, and alleged that it had discharged the above-named employees pursuant to the demand of the TAM and representations by the latter organization that the employees in question had been members in good standing of the TAM on December 6, 1945, and in viola- tion of the terms of the maintenance-of-membership agreement , had failed to m.un- tain their membership in good standing therein In its answer , the respondent moved for dismissal of the complaint . Ruling on the said motion is disposed of by the recommendations made below. Pursaunt to notice , a hearing was held on September 23, 24, and 25, 1946, at Chicago, Illinois , before the undersigned Trial Examiner , duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondent were represented by coun- sel ; the UE by a lay representative . The IAM did not appear . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned, without objection, granted a motion of Board counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to such formal mattei s as names , dates, and the like. Counsel for the respondent and the Board argued orally before the undersigned at the conclusion of the hearing . The parties were advised that they might file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as briefs with the under- signed by October 9 , 1946. A brief was filed by the respondent. 1It appeared at the hearing that "Havelka's" name is correctly spelled Havalka. The undersigned has used the latter spelling hereinafter. GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 71 Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of X-ray equipment. During the year preceding the hearing, the respondent's purchases of raw mate- rials for use at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, amounted in value to approximately $3,500,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to its said plant from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the respondent manu- factured products at its said plant valued at approximately $13,000,000, more than 90 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America , affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations , and International Association of Machinists, District No. 8, Ray-Point Local No. 1696, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent at its plant in Chicago , Illinois. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The factual setting It is undisputed that since November 20, 1945 , there has been in effect a contract , pre-dated to October 22, 1945, between the respondent and the col- lective bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees, the IAM. Paragraphs I (b) and I ( c) of that contract , embodying what are generally known as "maintenance of membership" and "escape period" pro- visions, read as follows : (b) Except as is otherwise provided in sub-section ( c) hereof, all em- ployees who are members of the [IAM ] Union in good standing in accord- ance with the constitution and by-laws of the Union and all employees who may hereafter become members shall, during the life of this agreement, as a condition of employment , remain members of the Union in good standing. (c) Any employee may. withdraw from the Union between November 20, 1945, and December 5, 1945, and between October 22nd and November 6th during 1946 and each year thereafter , by giving written notice to the Union. Sometime in October 1945, a number of the respondent 's employees , becoming dissatisfied with - the IAM as their collective bargaining representative, began to carry on activities designed to persuade the employees in the plant to change their affiliation from the IAM to the UE. Thus, an "organizing committee" on behalf of the UE was formed , consisting, among others , of Mack Denis, Anton Straka , Frank Fenrich , Frances Havalka , Oscar Olson , and Andrew Amrich, the six employees alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily dis- charged These members of the UE organizing committee , during the period from October 1945 to May 13, 1946 , actively solicited membership for the UE 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD among the respondent's employees, handing out UE application blanks in the plant, and trying to persuade the employees to sign them. The adherents of the UE also distributed mimeographed forms of resignation from the IAM, to winch they obtained a number of signatures from among the employees, after which the signed resignations were collected and mailed to the IAM during the first escape period provided by the contract From the early part of November 1945 to May 13, 1940, the aforesaid six members of the UE organizing committee openly identified themselves as such by wearing large buttons on their outer clothing while in the plant, marked "Organizing Committee. U. E-C. I O." as well as smaller buttons (about the size of a quarter), which were harked "U E. member." . The membership of Denis, Straka, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich on the UE's organizing committee, and their activities on behalf of the UE were known to the respondent. Mack Denis, one of the six discharged employees who were active on the UE organizing committee, testified without contradiction that lie was in the re- spondent's employ from February 20, 1942, until May 13, 1946, the date of his discharge, that he had formerly been a member and steward of the IAM; that on November 27, 1945, he mailed a letter to the recording secretary of the IAM, a carbon copy of which is in evidence, in which lie tendered his resignation from membership in that organization ; 3 that he mailed such letter in an envelope bearing his name and return address, that the letter had never been returned to him ; and that since resigning from the IAM lie had never rejoined it or carried on any activities on its behalf' It was stipulated that it called as wit- nesses, the other five employees whose discharges are herein discussed, namely Straka, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich, would have testified as follows : I That he or she was employed by the respondent for the following periods: Steal a (July 1930 to May 14, 1946) ; Pen,rich (February 1937 to May 13, 1040) ; Ita',all„a (May 1934 to May 13, 1946) ; Olson (August 1940 to May 13, 1946) ; Amrich (November 1935 to May 13, 1946) ; 2 The above findings with respect to the UE activities of the six employees are based on their undefined testimonv, and on stipulations as to what they would have testified if called as witnesses It was a;so stipulated that if called as a witness, the foiennan of each of the above-named six employees would have testified that lie had observed "some organizational activity on behalf of the UE, CIO, on the part of such employee during the period September through November 1945 , that such activity diminished and virtually disappeared during the period February through May 1946 as far as his obseivation was concerned, that he observed such employee wearing one on another or both UE, CIO buttons at various times prior to January 1946, but that such button wearing diminished thereafter, and lie does not remember specifically whether or not the said employee continued to wear such button thereafter " It will be noted that the foremen derv observing UE activities on the part of the six employees after Februaiy 1946 As is liereinatter discussed, the undersigned does not believe the fact sought to be established by the respondent, namely the UE activities fin its plant diminished or disappeared dining 1946, is material to the issues herein 3It will be recalled that the "escape period" provided for by the contract between the respondent and the IADI itins from November 20 to December 5 for the year 1945, and that it affords opportunity to employees to withdraw from membership in the IAM during that peiiod by "giving written notice to the" IADI 4 Denis also testified that lie had previously (on November 5, 1945) resigned from his membership, and position ac steward, in the IAM by registeied mail (postal receipt for which is in evidence) addressed to the president of the local of the IADI to which he belonged He explained that his second letter of resignation, namely the one nailed on November 27, was occasioned by the posting of a notice in the respondent's plant, calling the attention of the employees to the escape period provided by the contract, an l that lie sent the second letter "Just to maize sure there would not be any argument later, that I had resigned." GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 73 2. That he or she had formerly been a member of the IAM, and had held office therein ; 3 That lie or she resigned both as a member of the TAM and as the holder of any and all offices therein on the following dates and in the manner described below: Stn al:a (In early November 1945 by registered mail ad- dressed to Charles Willett, president, 1130 South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois , the address of the office of the JAM, and again on Nevember 24, 1945, by registered mail addressed to the same person and address) ; ° Fenrich (On October 20, 1945, resigned from all positions held by him in the JAM by registered mail, which resignation was accepted at a membership meeting of the JAM held on October 22, 1945, resigned his JAM membership on November 28, 1945, by registered mail addressed to Willett at above-stated address) ; ° Ilavalka (November 29, 1945, by registered mail addressed to Willett at his home address, in an enevlope bearing Havalka's name and re- turn addiess, winch was never returned to her) ; 7 Olson (November 21, 1945, by registered mail addressed to Willett at his home address) ; 8 Amrich (November 12, 1945, registered as steward by registered mail addressed to Willett at his home address; November 24, 1945, resigned membership in the IAM,,by registered moil addressed to Willett at his home address) ; ° 4. That following his or her resignation, lie or she never rejoined the JAM or carried on any activities on its behalf.10 B. The discriminatory discharges In a latter dated May 2, 1946, the JAM advised the respondent that Denis, Fenrich, Straka, Olson, Havalka, and Amrich had "failed to comply with the terms" of the maintenance-of-membership clause of the contract, and requested the respondent "immediately [to] dismiss them for [its] employ." On May 10, 1946, the respondent answered the JAM as follows : With further reference to your letter of May 2, 1946, will you kindly certify to us that the six persons named in your letter whose dismissal you have requested, were or became members in good standing of your union on December 6, 1945, or thereafter. IIt was stipulated that Straka would have testified that he had received a return postal ieceipt dated November 26, 1945, bearing the signature of a clerk in the JAM office, acknowledging receipt of his second letter of resignation A document purporting to be snch receipt is in evidence Counsel tor the respondent at the hearing stated lie did not question the authenticity of this, and the other postal receipts offered in evidence in con- nection with these resignations ° Pursuant to a stipulation to the same effect as that set forth in the footnote above, a return postal receipt dated November 30, 1945, is in evidence. 7 Postal receipt showing the mailing of a letter on November 29, 1945, is in evidence It was stipulated that Havalka would have testified that she did not request a return receipt acknowledged delivery of the letter 8 Return receipt signed "Chas E Willett" dated November 27, 1945, is in evidence. ° Return receipt dated November 27, 1945, signed "Chas N Willett ," is in evidence 11 The stipulation embodying the above testimony contained a proviso that the respond- ent, by so stipulating, was not conceding the truth of the testimony No evidence was introduced at the hearing, however, to controvert it, and the testimony therefore stands undisputed The undersigned, who had an opportunity at the hearing to observe Denis, Straka, Amrich, Fenrich, Havalka, and Olson, all of whom took the stand to testify. was impressed by all of them as honest witnesses The undersigned credits their undemed testimony with regard to the above. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We understand from your letter of May 2nd that these individuals are no longer members in good standing in accordance with your constitution and by-laws. On the same day, May 10, the IAM replied by letter : We wish to certify to you that the following employees of your plant: Frank Fenrich Anton Straka Frances Havalka Andy Amrich Oscar Olson Mack Denis were, on December 6, 1945, good standing members of District No. 8, Inter- national Association of Machinists, but are no longer in good standing in the International Association of Machinists. On May 13, 1946, Denis, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich, and on May 14, 1946, Straka, were discharged by the respondent in the following manner : In each case the employee in question was separately summoned to the respondent's personnel office where Personnel Manager McCalley showed him or her one of the above-quoted letters from the IAM demanding the dismissal of the six afore- said employees. McCalley then informed the employee that in accordance with the IAM\I's demand, and pursuant to the terms of the contract between the respond- ent and the IAM, he or she was being discharged. Each employee, oh the occasion in question, protested to McCalley that he or she had resigned from the IAM during the escape period, Denis, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich specifying that he or she had resigned by registered mail, and Denis, Olson, and Amrich stating that they could produce registered postal receipts as proof of this conten- tion. In each case, however, McCalley's only reply to these remonstrances was to the effect that the discharge must stand since the respondent had no other recourse but to accept the representations of the IAM, and accede to its demand that the employees in question be discharged" C. The conflicting contentions with respect to the discharges, and concluding findings with respect thereto Section 8 (3) of the Act defines as an unfair labor practice discrimination by an employer "in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or con- dition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization : P7ovtided, That nothing in this Act . .. shall preclude an employer from. making an agreement with a labor organization to iequiie, as a con- dition of employment, membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in Section 9 (a), in the appropiiate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made" The respondent contends' that "the discharge of these employees [i e the six herein involved] was required by the terms of its contract with the JAM and that its actions were entirely justified and not violative of the National Labor Relations Act " Since it is not disputed that the respondent's contract with the IAM meets the requirements of the above-quoted proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act, it follows, that if under the terms of the said contract the respondent, as it contends, was required to discharge the six employees, that tact would afford it a defense to the allegations of the complaint Conveisely, as board counsel contends, if the respondent was not bound by the contract It The above findings with respect to the discharges of the six employees are based on the undenied, credited testimony of Denis. Straka, Feniich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich. 12 Brief filed with the undersigned , pp 1-2. GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 75 to discharge the employees in question, such discharges do not come within the purview of the proviso to Section 8 (3), and being grounded on the failure of the dischargees to maintain their membership in the IAM, which the Board contends they were not obligated to do, clearly constituted an unfair labor practice as defined by that section of the Act i3 The undenied testimony of Denis, Straka, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich, which the undersigned has credited, makes it clear, and the under- signed therefore finds, that each of these employees prior to his or her discharge, had resigned from the IAM during the escape period provided for by the con- tract, and in conformance with the terms thereof." Since the contract specifically exempts from the maintenance-of-membership requirements those employees who avail themselves of the privilege to resign from the IADZ during the pre- scribed escape periods, it follows, and the undersigned concludes and finds, that the contract imposed no obligation on the respondent to discharge Denis, Straka, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich, and that their discharges were therefore illegal. As a further defense, the respondent advances the contention that, even if in fact the contract did not require the discharge of the six employees, because they had resigned from the IAM during the escape period, the discharges were nevertheless justified because the respondent had a right to accept as true the representations of the IA\I to the contrary," and to conclude that the contract did require their discharges The finding immediately preceding, based as it is on the principle that an employer acts at his peril when discharging em- ployees for their non-membership in a labor organization,16 renders this argu- ment immaterial, since the finding that the respondent's conduct was illegal rests, not on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of its conclusions with respect to the contract, or the degree of diligence or good faith exercised by it in seeking to discover the true facts, but on whether or not the contract in fact required the discharges. But even if the respondent's right to rely on the representations of the TAM were to be deemed material to the issues herein, the circumstances revealed by the record afford the respondent no defense 11 "A proviso [to a statutel which follows and restricts an enacting clause general in its scope should be strictly construed, so as to take out of the enacting clause only those cases which are fairly within the terms of the proviso, and the burden of proof is on one claiming the benefit of the proviso " (59 Corpus Juris 1089, and cases there cited ) The Board has followed this principle of statutory construction «ith respect to the pro- viso to Section 8 (3) of the Act Cf Matter of G 1% flume Co, 71 N L R B 533 Matter of Cape Are go Linnbei Co , 69 N L R I3 572 Matter of Zion Fireman Mfg Co., 69 N L R B 19 , Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co . 66 N L R B 1083 14 In its brief, the respondent argues that the only evidence in the record that the six employees had in fact resigned from the IAM during the escape period was "circum- stantial," and that any finding to that effect must necessarily be based upon `weak inferences " The undersigned finds no merit in this argument Not only did each of the aforesaid employees testify without contradiction that lie or she had, during the escape period, mailed one or more written resignations to the TAM, but postal receipts of unques- tioned authenticity are in evidence in corroboration of such testimony. In addition, with iespect to Stiaka, Fenrich, Amrich, and Olson, there are in evidence return postal receipts attesting to the receipt by the TAM of their respective resignations 15 It will be remembered that in its letter of May 10, 1946. the TAM "certified ' to the respondent that the six employees "were on December 6, 1945 [a day after the escape period], good standing members of [the IAM], but are no longer in good standing" therein 16 I, e., the employer takes the risk that the discharges are not in fact required by such a contract as is defined in the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act, and are conse- quently illegal 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As has been found above, each of the six employees herein involved protested to the respondent, when notified of his or her discharge, that he or she had resigned in writing from the JAM during the escape period-most of them specifying that the resignation had been mailed to the IAM by registered mail- and several offering to produce the registered postal receipt as proof of their contention. In each case the respondent refused to take account of the protest, and stated flatly that it had to "go by" the letter of the TAM It will be remem- bered also, that the respondent admittedly knew 17 of the activities of each of these employees on behalf of the UE, during the period preceding and during the escape period, which knowledge alone should have put the respondent on notice that these leading members of the UE might have taken advantage of the escape period to resign from the IAM. This information, taken in combination with the employees' direct statements, on the occasion of their discharge, that they had indeed resigned during the escape period, was sufficient to have created a reasonable doubt on the part of the respondent as to the accuracy of the IAM's representations.18 Having thus been put on notice of the strong possibility that the employees were under no obligation pursuant to the contract to maintain their membership in the IAM, a duty devolved on the respondent to inquire further into that question 1° This duty the respondent utterly failed to fulfill. Con- cededly taking the position that it must rely on the bare assertions of the TAM with respect to the status of the six employees, the respondent refused to give any consideration to the contentions of the employees that they had resigned from the IAM during the escape period, or to the offers of several of then to submit proof of these contentions. And despite its knowledge of circumstances cogently corroborating the statements of the employees, the respondent discharged them without in any other way inquiring into the truth or falsity of their claims The respondent advances two different explanations for its refusal to conduct any investigation into the conflicting allegations with which it was confronted. It contends first that the failure of the dischai ged employees to file written grievances against their discharges "had the effect of lulling the respondent into a feeling that since oral complaints [that the employees had resigned from the IAM during the escape period] evidently could not be substantiated, the certifica- tion by the IAM represented the true facts. Accordingly, there was no further duty of inquiry on the part of the respondent " In support of this contention the respondent points to Section VI of the contract between itself and the IAM, which reads in part as follows 17 Not only did respondent stipulate that the foremen of the employees would have testified, if called as witnesses, that they had seen the employees in question carry on UE activities dung the period from September through November 1945, and had observed them wearing UE meniberslnp and oiganizing committee buttons piior to January 1946. but there is also undenied testimony, which the undersigned credits, that at Board repie- sentation proceedings involving the parties lieiein, held on January 5 and February 36, 1946, Denis, Amrich, Straka, and Havalka, who attended in their capacity of members of the UE organizing committee, were introduced as such to the respondent's officials, Per- sonnel Manager McCalley, and Factory Manager Scheven 11 Since the undersigned has considered the respondent's knowledge of the activities of the six employees on behalf of the UE solely as tending to corroborate the employees' contentions that they had resigned during the escape period, the respondent's argument that such activities chnunshed or disappeared following the escape period, is quite beside the point Equally uuniaterial are the respondent's contentions that the employees' activ- ities on behalf of the UE did not take place within what the Board has termed "an appro- priate period " since this case does not involve the issue of discharges pursuant to expulsions of the employees from the contiacti ng union for so-called "dual unionism 19 Matter of Bakei cC Company, Inc, 68 N L. R. B 830. GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 77 Pi otnded, however, that any individual employee shall have the right at any time to present grievances to the Company in accordance with the pro- visions of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. (b) Cases of any employee claiming to have been improperly discharged, suspended or penalized shall be treated as grievances. Complaints thereof in writing shall be filed with the Personnel Manager, within two working days of date of discharge, suspension or penalty. Employees found to have been improperly discharged, suspended or penalized and reinstated shall be paid for all time lost with full continuity of service restored. The respondent argues that the existence of the foregoing provisions in the contract placed the burden upon the employees of utilizing the grievance pro- cedure thus available to them as individuals, if they wished their claims that they had resigned from the TAM to be investigated by the respondent. But as we have seen, the employees herein involved, when notified of their discharge, called the attention of the respondent to the fact that they were under no obligation to maintain membership in the TAM, and some of them offered to submit docu- mentary evidence of this statement. In each case the respondent stated cate- gorically that there was nothing it could do about the matter ; that the discharge must stand because the respondent had to accept the representation of the TAM as true. One of the employees, Olson, when the finality of the discharge was thus made clear to him, asked Personnel Manager McCalley for advice as to what he could do, whereupon McCalley advised him to ". . . go down to the Labor Board and write out a complaint; that is your only course. . . ."=0 By thus making clear to the six employees that its determination to discharge them was final, regardless of any proof that the employees might have available in support of their statements, the respondent effectively foreclosed them from pressing their grievances any further with the respondent. Any attempts along such lines, it told the employees in effect, would be futile, as indeed the record discloses they would have been 21 In these circumstances, the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent's refusal to inquire into the true facts, after being told by the employees that they had resigned from the TAM during the escape period, is neither attributable to, nor excused by, the said employees' failure to file written grievances after they had been discharged The respondent also takes the position that by requiring the IAM to "certify" to the fact that the six employees were members of that organization subsequent to the escape period, it had "exhausted its legitimate area of inquiry" and could make iio further investigation lest it lay "itself open to a charge of improper interference in the internal affairs of the TAM " This contention is answei ed by the Board's recent decision in Matter of Ba7xi & Company, Islc., 68 N. L R. B S30, 21 The above finding is based upon Olson s undenied testimony, which the undersigned credits 11 Factory Manager Scheven , the hilliest authority in the respondent's plant with respect to discharges of employees , testified that preceding the discharges of the six employees , he had informed Personnel Manager McCalley that the respondent "had no choice in the matter, that under the terms of the contract [it] had to comply with the request made upon [it] and dismiss these six employees " Sclieven further testified that the decision to discharge the six employees was made after consultation with the respond- ent's legal counsel and the president of the company , and that such decision represented the position taken by "the company" on that matter It is obvious, in view of the fore- going, that the decision of the respondent to discharge the six employees , could not have been influenced by anything the employees subsequently had to say, either in writing or orally, as the respondent made clear to them at the time of the discharges 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in which the Board pointed out that in circumstances such as those under discussion, we are not presented with a "dual-unionism" situation, nor with the ac- companying question of the duty of an employer to ingiure into the reason for requested discharges. We are not faced here wi ith the question of whether an employer need delve into the internal affairs of a 'union in the usual sense. Rather, we have before us the question of the duty of the respondent to inquire as to the identity of employees covered by the main- tenance-of-membership provision in its contract with the [IAM]. We ifre of the opinion that the respondent had such a duty When it failed to per- form that duty and discharged the [six] employees involved herein, it acted at its peril and violated Section 8 (3) of the Act when the true facts were, as herein found, that the contract did not require their discharge. There remains one final defense put forward by the respondent, namely, that its conduct was not the result of an intent to violate the Act, but was brought about by pressure exerted by the IAM The respondent adduced testimony to the effect that the JAM had threatened to call a strike if the respondent did not accede to its demand that the six employees be discharged. While this may shed light on the respondent's motives in effectuating the illegal discharges, it does not constitute a defense to such conduct It is well settled that "when it is once made to appear from the primary facts that the employer has violated the express provisions of the Act, we may not inquire into his motives" even where it is shown that lie "has not wilfully violated" the Act 22 On the basis of all the foregoing the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent, by its discharge of Mach K Denis, Anton J Straka, Frank Fenrich, Frances Havalka, Oscar Olson, and Andrew Amrich, discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member- ship in the LIE, and eneourag'ng membership in the IAM, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. Intel fei ence, reiti aint, and coci cion. It was stipulated at the hearing that if called as witnesses, Marion Price, Guiseppe Coduti, and Paul Ankowski would have testified, respectively, that while employed by the respondent as a production or maintenance employee, he or she was a member of the IAM, and resigned from that organization during the escape period by registered mail; 23 that following such resignation, he or she never rejoined the IAM or carried on any activities on its behalf; that at about the time of his or her resignation from the IAM, he or she joined the UE ; that during the month of July 1946, Robert O'Keefe, employed in the respondent's personnel department, told him or her than O'Keefe was advised by the IAM that he or she was delinquent in his or her dues to the IAM, and that O'Keefe instructed him or her "to get the matter straightened out with the IAM," failing which, he or she would be subject to discharge by the respondent at the IAM's request, pursuant to the provision of the maintenance of membership clause in the contract between the JAM and the respondent; that he or she then advised z2 Matter of Eureka Vaciomi, Cleaner Coinpani/, 69 N L R B 878, and cases cited in footnote 3 thereof 23 Registered postal receipts attesting to the mailing of the resignations of Codnti and Ankowski aie in evidence GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 79 O'Keefe that he or she had resigned from the IAM during the escape period by registered mail, and therefore had nothing to straighten out with the IAM ; that O'Keefe replied that nevertheless he or she should see the TAM about his or her dues delinquency or he or she might be discharged at the IAM's request pursuant to the aforesaid contract. The respondent, while not admitting the truth of the above stipulated testi- mony of Price, Coduti, and Ankowski, offered no evidence to refute it. The undersigned credits the aforesaid testimony and finds that the events and con- versations described therein occurred at the times and in the manner set forth in such testimony On the basis of the foregoing, and of the entire record, the undersigned further concludes and finds as follows : 1. That at the times O'Keefe spoke to Price, Coduti, and Ankowski during July 1946, as above described, none of these employees was under any obli- gation to maintain membership in or pay dues to, the IAM ; 2 That consequently the respondent-" interfered with, restrained, and coeiced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by warning Price, Coduti, and Ankowski to maintain their mem- bership in or to pay dues to the IAM, and by threatening them with possible discharge if they failed to do so; 3 That in any event, the respondent was put on notice by the statements of the aforesaid employees to O'Keefe that they had resigned from the TAM during the escape period, by the UE activities it had observed in its plant on the part of many of its employees, and by its previous experiences with the six employees herein found to have been discriminatorily discharged, that Price, Coduti, and Ankowski might not in fact be under any obligation to maintain membership in the IAM ; 4. That the respondent was under a duty to inquire into the question of whether or not the said employees were under any such obligation ; 5 That the respondent did not fulfill this duty before warning and threat- ening the three aforesaid employees as above described; and 6. That the respondent consequently acted at its peril in so warning and threatening them, and, since in fact the three employees were under no obli- gation to maintain membership in the TAM, or to pay dues to it, the re- spondent, by warning them to do so, and threatening them with possible discharge if they failed to do so, interfered with, restrained, and coreced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.26 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. - 24 It was stipulated at the hearing that O'Keefe was acting for and on behalf of the respondent when he engaged in the conduct herein discussed. 2 In essence the statements of O'Keefe to Price, Coduti, and Ankowski constituted tin cats by the respondent to discharge them under circumstances identical to those sur- rounding the discharges of Denis, Straka, Fenrich, Havalka, Olson, and Amrich If. as has been found, the discharges of the latter six employees were illegal, the threat to dis- charge other employees identically situated, unless they gave up the right to remain unaTHiiated with the IAM, was also necessarily illegal. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed-to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found above that the respondent's discharge of Mack K Denis, Frank Fenrich, Frances Ilavalka, Oscar Olson, and Andrew Amrich on May 13, 1946„ and of Anton J. Straka on May 14, 1946, constituted unfair labor practices under the Act. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions,26 without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. It will also be recommended that the respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he or she would have earned as wages from the date of his or her discharge from the respondent's employ, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings 2' during said period. It will also be recommended that the respondent post appropriate notices to its employees in connection with the foregoing. 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 and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and International Association of Ma- chinists, District No. S, Ray-Point Local No 1696, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. 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. 3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mack K. Denis, Frank Fenrich, Frances Havalka, Oscar Olson, Andrew Amrich, and Anton J, Straka, thereby discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ- izations, and encoui aging membership in International Association of Machin- ists, District No. 8, Ray-Point Local No. 1696, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (3) of the Act c 26 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression "former or substantially equivalent position ' is intended to mean "former position iihei- ever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent position " See Matter of The Chase National Band of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N 1, R B 827 27 By "act earnings" is meant earnings less expensgs, such as for transportation, i oem, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining iioik and iioikuig elsewhere than for the respondent, iihich would not have been mcuired but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Coni,pany, 8 N L It B 440. Monies received for work perfoinied upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R B., 311 U. S. 7. GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 81 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under- signed recommends that the respondent, General Electric X-Ray Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall. 1 Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization of its employees, and encouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, District No 8, Ray-Point Local No. 1696, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of its employees, unless obligated to do so by the terms of a valid contract then existing between the respondent and a labor organization of its employees ; (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, by in any manner warning any of its employees to maintain their membership in International Association of Machinists, District No 8, Ray-Point Local No 1696, or in any other labor organization, or in any manner threatening to discharge them for their failure to do so, unless such employee or employees shall be obligated to do so under the provisions of a valid contract entered into by the respondent with suacli labor organization. 2 'Cake the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Mack K. Denis, Frank Fenrich, Frances Havalka, Oscar Olson, Andrew Anirich, and Anton J. Straka, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Mack K. Denis, Frank Fenrich, Fi antes FIavalka, Oscar Olson, Andrew Amrich, and Anton J. Straka for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount deteimined in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy," above; (c) Post immediately at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Itepoit, herein, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, after being signed by the respondent, shall be posted by the respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days therafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (d) Notify the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is further recommended that unless the iespondent notifies said Regional Director in writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report 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 in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash- ington 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; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Im- mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy R ith the Regional Director. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. ISADORE GREENBERG, Trial Examwer. Dated November 21, 1946. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Electrical, Radio & Ma- chine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, or any other labor organization of our employees, or encourage membership in International Association of Machinists, District No 8, Ray- Point Local No. 1696, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or in any manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of any of our employees, unless we are obligated to do so by the terms of a valid contract then existing between ourselves and a labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, by in any manner warning any of our employees to maintain their membership in International Asso- r GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION 83 ciation of Machinists, District No. 8,'Ray-Point Local No. 1696, or in any other labor organization, or in any manner threaten to discharge them for their failure to do so, unless such employee or employees shall be obligated to do so under the provisions of a valid contract entered into by us with such labor organization. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein- statement 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 dis- crimination. Mack K Dehis Oscar Olson Frank Fenrich Andrew Amrich Frances Havalka Anton J. Straka GENERAL ELECTRIC X-RAY CORPORATION, Employer. By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 781902-18-vol. 76-7