Bell Aircraft Corp.

132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., AND PETER KIEwIT SONS' COMPANY, their officers, agents , successors, or as- signs, to discriminate against any of its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, in order to aid our organization in the enforcement of its rules and regulations, or for any other purpose, except to the extent per- mitted by an agreement executed in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE wrr r. NOT in any manner restrain or coerce the employees of the afore- said companies, their successors or assigns, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted by an agreement executed in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him. OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT FINISHERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION, LocAL No. 867, AFL, Union. Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and LAWRENCE W. CARPENTIER AND MELVIN D. FINCH INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 501, CIO and LAWRENCE W. CARPENTIER AND MELVIN D. FINCH. Cases Nos. 3-CA-447 and ,-CB-119. October 29,1952 Decision and Order On March 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that Respondent Bell Aircraft Corporation, herein referred to as Respond- ent Bell, and Respondent International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 501, CIO, herein referred to as Respondent Union, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and recommending that the Respond- ents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in unfair labor practices with regard to Lawrence W. Carpentier and recommended dismissal of that portion of the complaint.' Thereafter, I No exception was taken to the findings and recommendation with regard to Carpentler. 101 NLRB No. 41. BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 133 both Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts 3 the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 4 of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications : Like the Trial Examiner, we find that by enforcing the terms of the contract by which Respondent Bell agreed that it will not promote an employee to a supervisory position while charges are pending against him in the Respondent Union, Respondent Bell discriminated against Melvin D. Finch in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1), and the Respondent Union caused such discrimination in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A). However, unlike the Trial Examiner, we make no finding with respect to the execution of the contract which occurred on November 10, 1950, more than 6 months prior to July 26, 1951, the date on which the unfair labor practice charges were served on the parties.a Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that : 1. Bell Aircraft Corporation, Buffalo, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : a. Cease and desist from : (1) Giving effect to the clause of its contract with Respondent Union which prohibits it from promoting to a supervisory position any employee against whom charges are pending in the Union. (2) Encouraging membership in International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 501, CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to terms and conditions of employment. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. ' The Intermediate Report makes the following minor misstatement of fact which does not affect the validity of the Trial Examiner 's ultimate finding, nor our concurrence therein : "July 24 must be taken as the effective date when Bell was advised that the Union had no further opposition to Finch's promotion." The acting manager of labor relations testified without contradiction that Respondent Bell received this information from Respondent Union on August 2, 1951. * In accordance with Board practice, we shall hold the Respondents jointly and severally responsible for the back pay due to Finch, and not merely severally responsible as recommended in section V of the Intermediate Report. 5 See Paul W. Speer, 98 NLRB 212. 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (3) In any like manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain from engaging in any or all of the concerted activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (1) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records necessary or useful to the analysis of the amount of back pay due under the terms of this Order. (2) Post in its plant in Buffalo, New York, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of such notice, to be supplied by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent Bell, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by other material. (3) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply therewith. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, Local 501, CIO, its officers, rep- resentatives, and agents shall : a. Cease and desist from : (1) Giving effect to that clause of the contract between it and Re- spondent Bell Aircraft Corporation which prohibits the latter from promoting to a supervisory position any employee against whom charges are pending in the Union. (2) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Bell Aircraft Cor- poration, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns to discriminate in any manner against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (3) Restraining or coercing employees of Bell Aircraft Corpora- tion, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the concerted activities This notice, however, shall he, and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3 thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu thereof the as orris "A Decision and Order " In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 135 specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement. requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (1) Post at its business office in Buffalo, New York, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix B."' Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (2) Additional copies of Appendix B, to be furnished by the said Regional Director, shall be signed by a representative of Respondent Union and forthwith returned to the Regional Director. These no- tices shall be posted, Respondent Bell willing, on the bulletin boards in Bell's plant where notices to employees are customarily posted. (3) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply therewith. 3. Respondent Bell Aircraft Corporation, Buffalo, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 501, CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall jointly and severally make whole Melvin D. Finch for any loss of pay he may have suffered by the Respondents' dis- crimination against him, in the manner described in the Intermediate Report, as modified herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondents have violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) or Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by discriminating against Lawrence W. Carpentier. 4 See footnote 6. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on July 24, 1951, by Melvin D. Finch and Lawrence W. Carpentier, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), issued his complaint dated January 9, 1952, against Bell Aircraft Corporation, herein called Respondent Bell, or Bell, 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, Local 501, CIO, herein called Respondent Union, or the Union, alleging that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in cer- tain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3), Section 8 (b) (1) (A), Section 8 (b) (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. On the same day the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the two cases for the purposes of hearing. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by a notice of hearing, were duly served upon Respondents. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that Respondents (1) at all times material hereto were parties to an agreement relating to wages, hours, and conditions of employment which provided among other matters that no employee should be promoted to a supervisory position while charges were pending against him in the Union; (2) or about February 1, 1951, Respondent Union caused or attempted to cause Respondent Bell to dis- criminate against Finch and Carpentier by causing or attempting to cause Re- spondent Bell to refuse to promote them to supervisory positions because of their activities in opposition to the Union; and (3) on or about June 1, 1951, Respond- ent Bell, upon the insistence of Respondent Union, failed and refused to promote to supervisory positions the said Finch and Carpentier. By these acts it is alleged that Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees of Respondent Bell in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Respondent Bell filed an answer dated January 28, 1952, and Respondent Union an undated answer, admitting certain allegations of the complaints with respect to the nature of Respondent Company's business but denying that they had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Buffalo, New York, on February 4, 1952, before me, the undersigned Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof on formal matters, and to dismiss from the complaint the allegations that Respondent Bell discriminated against Carpentier. Both motions were granted. The parties engaged in oral argument but waived the filing of briefs. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT BELL Respondent Bell is a New York corporation having its principal office and place of business at Wheatfield, New York, where it is engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of airplanes, helicopters, guided missiles, and related products. During the year 1951, it purchased materials, supplies, and equipment in excess of 5 million dollars, of which approximately 90 percent was purchased by Respondent Bell from points outside the State of New York and shipped to its plant at Wheatfield. During the said period Respondent Bell sold finished products valued in excess of 10 million dollars of which at least 5 million dollars in value were shipped direct to points outside the State of New York. A substantial portion of the goods sold and distributed by Respondent Bell was BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 137 manufactured on behalf of and sold to the United States Government pursuant to contractual arrangements. There is no dispute, and I find, that Bell is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 501, CIO, is a labor organization admitting employees of Bell to membership. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion There is no dispute as to the facts of this case. Respondents have been under a contractual relationship since 1943 by means of annually executed contracts. The last two contracts, dated January 15 and November 10, 1950, and previous ones, contain and contained among other provisions the following clause : No employee shall be promoted to a supervisory position while charges are pending against that employee in the Union. These contracts have also provided for a union shop. On June 13, 1949, the employees went on a strike which was terminated by a settlement agreement dated October 17 of that year. Operations were resumed on October 19. The agreement provided among other matters as follows : With respect to men who have returned to work during the strike it is agreed that . . . the union will not take disciplinary measures against such men, nor will they be required to join the union, On July 23, 1950, the Union, by Robert Siegler, its president, wrote Respondent Bell as follows : It has come to my attention that several employees of the Corporation who were represented by Local 501, UAW-CIO, and who returned to work during the strike have been promoted to supervisory positions. You are aware the membership status of employees who returned to work during the strike is questionable. In fact, the charges which arose as a result of their returning to work in violation of union picket lines are not yet disposed of. Therefore, the Company's actions in promoting any such individuals to supervisory positions were and are improper in the light of the provisions of our contract. Accordingly, I am herewith requesting that such employees be returned to their former positions until such time as the membership of the Local Union makes a final disposition of the charges which are pending against them. Respondent Bell replied to the above letter on January 25, asserting that its allegations were without foundation and quoted the provision in the strike settlement agreement set forth above. With reference to the Union's charge that Bell had violated its contract, Bell called attention to the grievance machinery provided for in the contract. On February 1, 1951, Respondent Union wrote Respondent Bell as follows : Pursuant to Paragraph 80 A-1, of our Contract, kindly take notice that charges are pending against the employees whose names appear on the enclosed list. We request, pursuant to the said paragraph, that none of these employees be promoted during the pendency of these charges. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attached to the letter was an alphabetical list of over 300 employees, including the names of Finch and Carpentier. In April 1951, Respondents submitted to arbitration the interpretation and application of paragraph 80 A-1. Bell's contention before the arbitrator was that the invocation of this clause by the Union as to employees who had not gone out on strike, or who had left the strike before its termination, was in violation of the Union's agreement not to take disciplinary action against them. On May 31, 1951, the arbitrator handed down an award which decided the matter against Respondent Bell, holding that paragraph 80 A-1 was "clear and unequivocal" and that Bell was barred from promoting to supervision anyone against whom charges were pending. This included, of course, Finch and ('arpentier. B. The discrimination against Finch Melvin Finch came to work for Respondent Bell on July 29, 1940. He partici- pated in the 1949 strike but abandoned it and returned to work on September 27. George White, superintendent of airport operations and Finch's supervisor, called the latter to his office during the first part of June 1951, shortly after the arbitrator's award, and told him that he was being considered for promotion to a job as assistant foreman which was open at that time. When White, however, began to process Finch's promotion, he was told by higher supervision that charges were pending against Finch in the Union and that for this reason he could not be promoted. The testimony of James McNamara, manager of industrial relations, is, and it is admitted by all parties, that had it not been for the Union's letter of February 1 and the arbitrator's award supporting the Union's position, Bell would have promoted Finch to supervision at the time White spoke to him, or as soon thereafter, usually a week or 10 days, as his promotion could have been processed. Finch and Carpentier, as has been observed, filed their charges in the instant case on July 24, 1951. In a letter dated the same day the Union advised Bell by letter that "effective July 2, 1951" all charges arising out of the strike which were pending against union members had been disposed of, and that no charges remained against any of the individuals whose names were included in the list enclosed with the Union's letter of February 1. No explanation is given as to the predating of the disposition of these charges. No previous communication to Bell concerning the disposition of the charges is claimed, and it is clear that July 24 must be taken as the effective date when Bell was advised that the Union had no further opposition to Finch's promotion. On September 3, 1951, Bell gave Finch his supervisory job which Bell had held open for him. Bell explains the delay in promoting Finch by the fact that most of the employees, including Finch, were on vacation and the fact, as has been found, that a week or 10 days is normally required to effectuate a promotion. Contentions of the Parties The General Counsel contends that Respondents violated the Act by including in their contract the language previously adverted to, that Respondent Bell violated it by withholding the promotion of Finch and the Union by causing Respondent Bell to do so. Respondent Bell contends that the existence of this language in the contract is not in itself a violation of the Act and becomes so only when "abused." It asserts that when the Union invoked the clause in the early part of 1951, it did everything possible to cheek its improper use and held Finch's promotion open. BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 139 It further asserts that the award of May 31 effectively barred it from promoting Finch. Finally, it argues that it could not be sure that other and legitimate con- siderations did not enter into the charges filed against Finch. In support of the last point it cites the fact that it promoted 56 early returning strikers to super- viision between the end of the strike and September 3, 1951, most of them before the end of 1950, and most without any protest from Respondent Union' The contention of the Union is that Finch was not discriminated against because of nonmembership in a labor organization since he and all other employees were members of the Union, and that its charges were initiated, and in Finch's case pressed to a conclusion, because they did not abide by the rules of the organization of which they were members.2 It joins with Respondent Bell in contending that section 80 A-1 is not per se violative of the Act. I take up first the manner in which section 80 A-1 was invoked as to Finch. As has been seen, Respondent Bell admits, and Respondent Union does not con- tend otherwise, that but for the latter's invocation of this section Finch would have been promoted to a foreman's job in the early part of June 1951. Neither is it denied that the charges pending against him and others were based upon their return to work during the strike. Section 7 of the Act provides that employees have the right to refrain from engaging in concerted activity, a right which Finch exercised when he left the strike. Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of this right. Section 8 (b) (1) (a) makes it an unfair labor prac- tice for a labor organization to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. Section 8 (a) (3) prohibits discrimination by the employer in regard to hiring and tenure of employment. Section 8 (b) (2) prohibits a labor organization from causing or attempting to cause an employer so to discriminate. When Respondent Bell, at the behest of Respondent Union, failed to promote Finch it discriminated in regard to his "hire or tenure of employment" as clearly, if not as extensively, as it would have done if it had discharged him. It was justified in doing so, if at all, only if the charges in the Union against Finch were based upon his failure to tender his periodic dues required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the Union. It is not contended that Finch was delinquent in this respect. Nor do I find merit in the contention that the language of section 80 A-1 is not per se invalid. As drafted, the section clearly protends the possibility that an employee may not be promoted for any one of a number of reasons other than his failure to pay dues. Its vagueness and generality suggest that he may and will be refused promotion if a charge is pending against him in the Union based on any grounds whatsoever. The Board has held that an employer may not so delegate to a union control over an employee's employment status.' It may be conceded that Respondent Bell was reluctant not to promote Finch and was instrumental in asking for an interpretation of the controversial clause by an arbitrator, and that the arbitrator's award upholding the contentions of Respondent Union was unwelcome to it. The Board has previously held, however, and only recently in the Monsanto Chemical Company case,4 that an arbitrator's award is not binding upon the Board. I The Union protested in a few of these instances , and effectively so in January 1951 as to one Emil Luscher who is not included in the complaint. 2 The Union does not cite any failure of Finch to abide by its rules other than the violation implied by the fact that he abandoned the strike. 8 See Peerless Quarries, Inc., 92 NLRB 1194. 4 97 NLRB 517. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There is one remaining contention raised by Respondent Union to be considered. It has been previously noted that the General Counsel moved that the case be dismissed against Respondent Bell as to Carpentier, because there was no evidence that Carpentier had at any time been considered for promotion to super- vision. The Trial Examiner granted that motion. The General Counsel, how- ever, contends that the Union's letter of February 1, listing the names of 321 employees against whom charges had been filed, constituted an attempt by Re- spondent Union to cause Respondent Bell to discriminate against Carpentier since his name was included among the others. I find no merit in this contention. Admittedly, Respondent Bell at no time had the promotion of Carpentier under consideration. It seems to me that it would be a forced construction of the term "attempt" to apply it here. I shall hereafter recommend that this part of the complaint be dismissed as to Respondent Union. I find that, by failing to promote Finch in the early part of June 1951, Respond- ent Bell discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions of his employment, thereby encouraging membership in Respondent Union, and that Respondent Bell thereby violated Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. By such discrimination Respond- ent Bell interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. By the same reasoning I find that Respondent Union caused Bell to discrimi- nate against Finch in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and thereby violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. By that conduct Respondent Union restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , in viola- tion of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents Bell and Union , described in section III, above, considered in connection with the business of Bell, set forth 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 Respondents Bell and Union have committed certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that each cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Union has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , and has caused Respondent Bell to discriminate against Melvin Finch , it will be recommended that Respondent Union cease and desist from such conduct. Having found that Respondent Bell has interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , and has encouraged membership in Respondent Union by preventing the said Melvin Finch from obtaining a promotion to a supervisory position because charges were pending against him in Respondent Union, it will be recommended that Respond- ent Bell cease and desist from such conduct. In order as nearly as possible to restore the status quo, I will recommend that the Respondents, severally, make Finch whole for any loss of earnings by pay- ment to him of a sum of money equal to the difference between his wages as a production worker and his wages or salary as a supervisor from June 10, 1951, the approximate date when promotion was refused him, to September 3, 1951, BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 141 when it was granted, less his net earnings during that period,' the payments to be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company.° I shall also recommend in accordance with the Woolworth decision that Respondent Bell, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents all pertinent records. It having been found that the clause in the contract between Respondents prohibiting Respondent Bell from promoting to supervision any union member against whom charges are pending in the Union is invalid, it will be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from giving effect to that clause. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workeis of America, Local 501, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Respondent Bell is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. By causing Respondent Bell to discriminate in regard to the terms of em- ployment of Melvin Finch, Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 4. By such conduct Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the terms of employment of Melvin Finch, thus encouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent Bell has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 6. By such conduct Respondent Bell has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thus engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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 omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT encourage membership in INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 501, CIO, or in any other labor organization by giving effect to that clause of our contract with that union which prohibits us from promoting to supervision an employee while charges are pending against him in the union. We will promote to supervision Melvin Finch and make him whole for any loss of earnings caused by the discrimination against him. See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8. ° 90 NLRB 289. 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner , interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Employer. Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Appendix B NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 501, CIO, ALL EMPLOYEES OF BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, its officers, agents , successors, or assigns, to refuse to promote to supervision an employee while charges are pending against him in the union. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL withdraw any objection to the promotion to supervision of Melvin Finch and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. INTERNATIONAL UNION, I N1TFD APTOMOLI-.E, AIRCR?FT AND ACR'CCLTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 501, CIO, Labor Organizati9n. Dated ------------------ By ---------------------------------------------- (Representatlve ) ( Ti.-le) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the,date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. GREAT LAKES PIPELINE COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 348, PETITIONER . Case No. 17-RC-1422. Oc- tober 29,1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene Hoffman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 101 NLRB No. 45.