Bear Brand Hosiery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 323 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, LOCAL 296, AFFILIATED WITH
THE A. F. ,L.
Case No. 'C-92062.-Decided April 9, 1942
Jurisdiction : cotton yarn and hosiery manufacturing industry. -
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; questioning em-
ployees concerning union membership; threat to remove the plant; surveil-
lance of union meeting ; voluntary wage increases ; execution of individual
contracts proscribing the right of employees to strike. -
Discrimination:' discharges of employees for union activities and refusal to
reinstate strikers on application; discharge of employees for refusal to sign
- individual contracts restraining their right to strike, held discriminatory.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist from unfair labor
practices, to cease giving effect to individual contracts, and to reinstate dis-
charged employees and strikers with back pay from the date of discrimina-
tion to the date of reinstatement.
Mr. Lester Asher and Mr. David H. Karasick, for the Board.
Fyffe ct; Clark, by Mr. Alfred J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for the
respondent.
Mr. Howard A. Plank, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. George J. Hadjinoff, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed by International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 296, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint,
dated November 28, 1941, against Bear Brand Hosiery Company,
Kankakee,' Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
'A charge was filed on September 26, an amended charge on October 3, and a second
amended charge on November 27, 1941.
40 N. L. R. B., No. 56.
-323
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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. Copies of the complaint, ac-
companied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in
substance: (1) that the respondent warned and discouraged its em-
ployees-against affiliation with or activities on behalf of the Union
or any , other affiliated labor organization ; made statements disparag-
ing and deriding the Union and other affiliated labor organizations;
threatened to shut down and move its Kankakee plant out of town
unless its employees ceased their activities on behalf of the Union or
other affiliated labor organizations ; engaged in surveillance of meet-
ings of the Union or other affiliated labor organizations; and inquired
of employees and applicants for employment as to membership in or
activities on behalf of the Union or other affiliated labor organiza-
tions; ( 2) that the respondent on or about August 15, 1941, and
thereafter , attempted to induce its powerhouse employees to sign
certain individual agreements ' with it, as a device to circumvent the
Union and in order to impede and restrict the rights of its employees
to strike and engage in other lawful concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection;
(3) that the respondent on or about September 17, 1941 , discharged
John Williams , James Riordan, Lester ' Sovinski , Willis Donovan,
and Martin Brueggert , and has since refused to employ them , because
of their union membership and concerted activities ; ( 4) that by rea-
son of the above, the powerhouse employees , excluding the chief
engineer , went on strike on or about September 18, 1941, and said
strike continued until on or about September 30, 1941 ; ( 5) that on or
about September 30; 1941 , and at various times thereafter , the strik-
ing employees made application to the respondent for reinstatement,
but the respondent refused and failed to reinstate such employees
because of their union membership and activities ; and (6 ) that by the
foregoing conduct the respondent interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act . On or about December 6 , 1941, the respondent
filed its answer in which it admitted some of the allegations of the
complaint but denied that it had engaged in any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was, held at Kankakee , Illinois, from
December 11 to' December 16, 1941 , before George Bokat, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner : The Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 325
its representative, and all participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity 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 Board's case counsel for the respondent
moved that the complaint be dismissed. This motion was denied.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On January 21, 1942; the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were served on the parties. He found 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 Act; and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate
affirmative action" On February 25, 1942, the respondent filed its
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. No briefs were filed and no
oral argument before'the Board was requested. The Board has con-
sidered the respondent's exceptions and finds such exceptions, save
as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set
forth below, without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Illinois corporation with its general offices in
Kankakee, Illinois, operates three plants located, respectively, at
Kankakee, Illinois; Gary, Indiana; and Henderson, Kentucky. At
the Kankakee plant, the only one here involved, the respondent is
engaged in the spinning of cotton yarn and the knitting of circular
and full-fashioned hosiery. During the year 1940, raw materials
purchased by the respondent for processing in the Kankakee plant,
consisting of raw cotton, silk and cotton yarn, nylon, and chemicals,
amounted in value to approximately $1,500,000, of which more than
90 percent were shipped from points outside the State of Illinois:
During the same period the total receipts from sales of products
manufactured at the, Kankakee plant exceeded $4,000,000, of which
approximately 85 percent were received from sales of products de-
livered' outside the State of Illinois.
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 296, is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
It admits to membership employees of the respondent. -
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES z -
A. Background
Sometime in 1935 and continuing for a period of about 8 months
thereafter , the American Federation of Hosiery Workers attempted
to organize the respondent's employees. During this period, Ernest
Hoeft, foreman of a department known as the dye house, spoke to
employee Donald Vadedoncouer in regard to the organizational
campaign and said : "These people want to remember what happened
at Beaver Dam." a -
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On May 19, 1936, the respondent posted copies of the following
notice on all its time clocks:
This plant has always been and will continue to be operated as
an open shop. -
It is not necessary to belong to a union or to pay dues to work
in our plant.
Any employee has the same right to persuade a fellow employee
not to join a union as any union organizer has to persuade him to
join a union.
In no case can an employee or an outside organizer legally use
coercion. -
Martin Brueggert applied for employment with the respondent in
'September 1936. One Cothery, the respondent' s personnel director,
handed him an application blank after first ascertaining that he was
At the close of the Board 's case the respondent called no witnesses and offered no
evidence to dispute the Board 's proof in support of the allegations of the complaint, and
rested. The Trial Examiner was favorably impressed on the whole by the demeanor of
the Board 's witnesses . Since their testimony was not contradicted or refuted in any way
by the respondent , we, as did the Trial Examiner , accept their testimony as being in
substantial accord with the facts.
8 At the bearing , the parties stipulated that the respondent , at some time in March 1934,
operated a plant at Beaver Dam , Wisconsin ; that prior thereto a labor organization at-
tempted to organize the employees of this plant and the employees went out on strike;
that following the strike the plant closed down and never reopened ; and that no inference
should be drawn that this plant was closed because of the aforesaid labor dispute . Hoeft's
statement is set forth above as informative background , since subsequent events indicate
that supervisory employees made frequent references to the closing of the Beaver Dam
plant in their efforts to intimidate the employees against joining a labor organization.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 327
not a; member of iiny labor organization, and told him that' she
"wanted to keep the union out, if we can." Thereafter the respond-
ent hired Brueggert. Sometime in 1939 Foreman C. O. Patchett told
Brueggert that if the mill went union, that Henry, Pope 4 would
never recognize it, he would close it down first."
-Organizational activities were resumed early in- 1940, when United
Textilef Workers, an A. F. of L. affiliate, herein referred -to as the
United; began to organize the employees. On February 26,, 1940, the
United granted a charter to a local for the respondent's employees,
known as Local 2564. In November, 1940, Foreman Walter Kirkman
asked employee Ralph Sapp what he "knew about the-union." When
Sapp replied, `.Nothing," Kirkman stated that he had been informed
that Sapp had been soliciting the' employees. At about, this time,
Kirkman also, inquired of Samuel Africano if he was .a_union mem-
ber, and upon receiving an affirmative reply, _Kirkman stated that
he "didn't think the union would ever come into Bear Brand as long
as Henry Pope was the head of the-... Company" because "the
Popes have been, ever since it has been established, very bitter against
all kinds of union ..: "
Kirkman, in January 1941, asked Fay Odell, an employee, which
employees belonged to the United, "who was the leaders and all that,
and I [Odell] didn't tell him . . . ' So he began to tell about-what
the company would do, they would move off down to Kentucky and
move 'everything out." At about the same time, Foreman Hoeft told
employee Don Bruyneel that he was "absolutely opposed to any Union
'coming in here" because he, had experience with unions and` "they
were no good." - . I '
In ' February' 1941, Cothery inquired of Charles Schmitz and Anna
'Barna, applicants for, employment, whether they belonged to, or
,were interested in, any labor organization, and when both replied in
the negative they were given applications to fill out. Cothery also
'told Barna : "We want to keep the union out of here if we possibly
can."
In March 1941, Kirkman, after ascertaining from Africano that he
was one of the departmental union' representatives, told him that he
"didn't think . . . the union ... would ever be successful, because
... the policies of the company were against all kinds of unions,
4 Henry Pope, Sr., is chairman of the Board of Directors and his son , Henry Pope , Jr., is
president of the respondent . Another son , William , also has managerial duties. Whether
Patchett was referring to the father or the son is not clear from the record.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 3, 1941, the respondent posted copies of the following
notice on all its time clocks :
To OUR EMPLOYEES :
1. THIS PLANT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE
OPERATED AS AN OPEN SHOP.
2. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BELONG TO A UNION OR TO PAY DUES TO
WORK IN OUR PLANT.
3. NO EMPLOYEE AND NO GROUP OF EMPLOYEES CAN GET ADVANTAGE
OR PREFERENCE OVER ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNION
MEMBERSHIP OR UNION ACTIVITY.
4. THIS COMPANY WILL PROTECT ITS EMPLOYEES IN THEIR JOBS.
THIS COMPANY'S POLICIES REGARDING THE FOREGOING SUBJECTS HAVE
BEEN THE SAME FOR MANY YEARS.
THESE POLICIES HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED AND,THEY WILL NOT BE
CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.
Several days prior to the United's first public meeting on March 15,
Armel Regnier was discussing it with a fellow employee, when their
-foreman, Leo Knorr, overheard part of the,conversation and stated :
`'If you fellows are talking about the union, .:. you better remember
the old man moved out of Wisconsin on account of a union, and he
will move out of here, . . ." About this time Foreman Les Swanson
told Paul Gall `'So you are going to help Mr. Pope move his plant
to Henderson, Kentucky," and then, asked Gall what he expected to
get out of the Union. Foreman Hoeft and Eimmen made similar'
threats about the removal of the plant, to employees Vadedoncouer,
Paul Noenning, and Marian Piatt.
The United decided to hold another public meeting on March 22,'
and several days prior thereto issued its first handbills to the em-
ployees announcing the time and place of the meeting. Bruyneel,
financial secretary and business agent of Local 2564, arrived at the
meeting a little late, and several of the members called his attention
to a parked automobile, so located as directly to face the entrance to
the union hall. Bruyneel, together with several other employees,
walked over to the car and found Company Policemen Stone and.Creig
sitting in the front seat. Bruyneel opened the door of the car and
accused Stone and Creig of spying on the union meeting. Stone's
only reply was to remark several times over, "We don't want no
trouble," while Creig made no reply. Bruyneel then offered them
several copies of a labor newspaper that contained an account of the
organizational activities of the local, and stated that "it wasn't neces-
sary for them to spy for their information, because we would give it
to them." Stone and Creig refused to accept the newspapers and
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 329
drove away. We find that by the activities of Stone and Creig, the
respondent engaged in surveillance of a union meeting.
On April 14, 1941, the respondent notified its employees of a 5-per-
cent1ncrease in wages.
Africano and three other United representatives constituted a com-
mittee representing the employees of their department. They went
to Pope's office on May 21, 1941. One member of the committee went
into Pope's office while the others waited outside. After waiting a
few minutes, the other members of the committee went into Pope's
office where the following colloquy took place:
Porr. What's going on here? What do you people want? I
am talking to this man.
AFRICANO. Well, we are here together. We 'represent our board-
ing department and we come asking for an increase in wages.
Porr. There is no such thing as representatives ... I am talk-
ing to this man here. I will talk to you as individuals. Otherwise,
you go back to work or go home.
The day after Vadedoncouer distributed United handbills at the
,respondent's main gate in June 1941, he met his foreman, Hoeft, out-
side the plant. After discussing Vadedoncouer's distribution of the
handbills, Hoeft said, "You will be lucky if you have a job when
you go back to work."
Charles Hildebrand, employed in the respondent's powerhouse,
had a newspaper delivered to him each day in the plant and cus-
tomarily read it there during his spare time without objection from
supervisors. Sometime in July 1941, while Hildebrand was reading
an A. F. of L. newspaper given to him by a fellow employee, Power-
house Superintendent Irwin Grey asked him what he was reading.
When Hildebrand replied that it was a "labor paper," Grey said :
"I wouldn't be seen with that. I wouldn't read that, . . . That
is against the company's rules to read anything like that, . . . I
would throw that thing away and get rid of it." At about this time
Hildebrand wore a union button that had just been issued by the
United to its members. Chief Engineer Hedditch noticed the button
and inquired of Hildebrand if he was a member of the United; when
the latter replied in the affirmative, Hedditch asked if he was the
only one, and Hildebrand said that all the powerhouse employees
but one were members. About 15 or 20 minutes later, Superintendent
Grey asked Hildebrand the significance of his wearing the button
and the former replied that all the United members were .going to
wear union buttons; Grey thereupon stated that he "didn't think that
Mr. Pope would like that very well . . ."
On July 22, 1941, the United filed a petition with the Board for
an investigation and certification of representatives. On July 31,
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
due to a dispute with the* respondent, the employees picketed the
plant and continued to do' so until August 6 when they returned to
work.' On August 4, the powerhouse employees, 17 out of 18 of
whom were members of the United, transferred their membership to
the Union with the consent of the United.
On August.8, the respondent caused the following paid advertise-
ment to be inserted in the Kankakee Republican-News, Kankakee's
only daily newspaper:
To OIIR EMPLOYEES:
In view of recent events, we wish to reassure our employees
as follows : -
This plant has always been and'-will continue to be operated
as an open shop. -
It is not necessary to belong to a union or to pay dues to
work in-our plant.
No employe and no group of employees can get any advan-
tage or preference over any other employe on account of union
membership or union activity.
There has been no understanding or agreement arrived at by
this company with any labor union.
If, and so long as, law and order are re-established and main-
tained in this community, this company will attempt to continue
to operate our Kankakee plant.
But, in view of the increasing complexities and uncertainties
involved in the operation of this' plant, we feel obligated to ad-
vise our employees that we cannot state whether, or to what
extent, this plant will continue to operate.
On August 18, a Board hearing took place on the petition filed
by the United. On September 18 the Board directed that two' elec-
tions take- place, one among the production and maintenance em-'
ployees, and another among the powerhouse employees.6 The election-
was set- for October 2.
Prior to the elections the respondent continued its opposition to
employee'self,orgailization. Thus, in August Foreman Kirkman told
Ralph Hartung and three other employees, "Well,' the Union won't
do you much good, :.. because Mr. Pope will never recognize it .. .
Even after an, election, he won't recognize it. He won't have to. He
will close the plant down." In the same month Superintendent Grey
told Brueggert and Willis Donovan that "Henry Pope -would never
6 A similar advertisement appeared on August 14 In the Kankakee Star , a weekly
newspaper. `
Matter of Bear Brand Hosiery Company and United Textile Workers of America;
Local 2564, affiliated with the A. F.-of L, 35 N. L R. B 500 -
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 331,
stand for a union ..." Grey, about September 8, asked Hildebrand
if the employees were "still sticking to the union." Upon receiving
an affirmative reply, he said "Well, do you think if I give the boys a
10-percent an hour raise, that they would be willing to drop the union
card? . . . • Well, you just feel around and see what the other boys
think about it."' The Popes, the father and two sons, during August
and September, visited the homes of the employees and among other
things discussed the Uniori and the forthcoming elections. During
one such visit, Pope, Sr., after discussing the Union with John T.
Williams, a powerhouse employee, stated that he "had been running the
plant for quite a long time," and now if he "was going to have to turn
it over to two or three [others] or somebody else to operate it," that
he might as well be on his way "out." Pope, Jr., told employee LeRoy
Regnier that he was "going from house to house campaigning about
the election we are supposed to have," and that although he did not
care which way Regnier voted, Regnier, knew where his "bread and
butter has come from the last fourteen years." Pope, Jr., also asked
Francis Regnier what he expected to gain from the Union and when
Regnier replied that he wanted to improve his working conditions,
Pope said that if he [Pope] did not want to run the plant he "would
eat and a lot of others wouldn't eat ...." 8
. On September 8, the respondent posted copies of a notice on all
its time clocks, and on September 26 attached copies of a similar notice
to all the pay checks of its employees, reading as follows :
Any Employee of this Plant Will be Subject to Disciplinary Ac-
tion (Including Dismissal) For Any of the Following Reasons:
First. Theft, or wilful damage to company property.
Second. Solicitation on Company Property, of any kind, for
any organization, without the written approval of the Superin-
tendent. This includes solicitation for social, charitable, church,
union, fraternal and other organizations-including solicitation
for membership and solicitation for money.
Third. The use of physical violence, threats, or measures that
are either coercive or abusive on fellow employees, either inside
or outside Company Property.
On September 22, the respondent posted copies of a notice stating :
"Effective.with this time card the additional compensation being paid
will be increased from 5 percent to 10 percent."
° The employees to whom Hildebrand put the question refused the offer
8 Although Pope also told Regnier that no one would know hoi^, he voted, and_ that
Regnier would have his job no matter bow he voted, this assurance does not mitigate
the coercive effect of Pope's statements quoted above.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 30, 2 days before the date set for the elections, the
respondent sent to all the employees the following letter :
Thursday, October 2nd, you have the right to vote as to whether
you wish your relations to remain as they have -been- with the
Company or whether you wish the Union to represent you in these
relations . Your problem is to decide and vote which would be the
best for you, your job , and your future.
You know better than anybody your past relations with the
Company; whether you had steady work, what your earnings
are, whether you have felt secure in your job, and whether your
working conditions have improved. You should weigh this
record carefully against wi at possible advantages and obligations
you will have under a union.
If you are to remain in good standing as a union member', you
will have certain costs and obligations, some of which are:
1. You will be required to pay union dues, assessments, fines,
purchase tickets, subscribe to benefits and other money-raising
devices hereafter-in good times and bad. The amount of these
dues, assessments, fines, etc., will be imposed as the union sees fit.
2. You will be required to support and take part in all union
(Labor disputes) activities, including strikes and picketing. You
will be required to support these whether you feel they are, or
are not for the best interest . As a union member you sacrifice
your individual rights to work when you desire; as a union mem-
ber you can work only when approved by the leaders of the
union.
3. You will be required to support the Union demands on the
Company whether they will temporarily or permanently affect
the operations of this plant in this community.
On the above matters you, as an individual, may not have much
to say. As an illustration : many of you, including those of you
who supported the Union, are in a good position to judge how
much "say" you had in the recent strike, and how much "say"
you may have in determining acts taken by the union in the
future.
A great many questions have been asked regarding collective
bargaining . Unionization or collective bargaining does not mean
that the Company will be, or can be forced , or required to grant
anything to the Union which it does not want to grant.
There is nothing in unionization or collective bargaining which
in any way changes the Company's right to continue to operate
this plant, or to abandon the operation of this plant, or any part
of it.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 333
This is your election-your opportunity to decide for yourself.
Your vote will be secret from the Company, from the Union,
from the Labor Board, and from everybody else.
You will be absolutely free to vote as you please regardless
of anything you have done, or signed, or joined, or said; or
promised, at any time before the election.
The election will be decided by a majority of those who vote.
The result of this election involves a serious matter to you
for the future, the good years and the bad years that are to
come: Do not cast-your vote lightly on the crest of the.short-
lived war wave of today, without regard to the troubled future.
Weigh the matter as carefully and, as seriously as you would
weigh the most important step in your economic life,-and then
vote.
But, by all means VOTE ! ! !
P. S. We -wish to express our appreciation of the kind welcome
we have received visiting your homes. The information we have
so far received is and will continue to be of value to the improve-
ment of the operations of the plant. If -we have not personally_
visited your home, we will do so- in the near future.
On October 3, the day following the elections," the respondent posted
the following notice and shortly thereafter attached copies of it to
the pay-roll checks of its employees :
The outcome of the election has not changed the basic policy
of the company : that this plant will continue to be operated as
an open shop.
Unchanged also is: the right of the employee to join or refrain
from joining., a labor- union.
The,company will accord all employees the same treatment
and discipline, whether members or non-members of a labor
organization.
The facts found above demonstrate that the respondent was en-
gaging in a coercive course of conduct.10 Thus, contemporaneous with
organizational activities, the respondent questioned employees and
applicants for employment about their membership or interest in a
union; told them that the respondent was opposed to unions and would
'The United obtained 1,112 votes out of 1,624 cast The votes of the poncerhouee
employees 'were challenged By-a supplemental decision on November .7, the Board certified
the United as the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees,
and deferred ruling on the challenged ballots "until such time as disposition has been
made of the pending charges" herein . The reason for the challenges is more fully set
forth below
10 Cf N L R B v Virginia Electric R Power Co, 62 S. Ct 344.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
never recognize the same; made threats to close or move the plant; spied
upon a union meeting; granted a voluntary increase in wages and
followed it by another voluntary increase shortly before the holding
of Board directed elections and after the United had requested ex-
clusive bargaining rights; 11 and in other respects, contrary to, the
clear mandate of the Act, coerced employees in their selection of
bargaining representatives. Throughout this period, by various
notices, advertisements, and letters to its employees, the respondent
clearly evinced its opposition to- legitimate organizational efforts.
The time and circumstances of the publication of the various notices
described above, considered in conjunction with what the respondent
otherwise said and did, and the implications contained therein that
the employees would gain nothing by joining a labor organization,
made them intimidatory, coercive, and violative of the Act. Some
of the notices went even further; the advertisement of August 8, for
example, contained the respondent's clear. threat to .lose its Kankakee
plant, "In view of the increasing complexities and uncertainties
involved in the operation of this plant." By this language the
respondent clearly referred to the growing strength and militancy
of the United. This language can be construed only as an attempt
on the part of the respondent to intimidate its employees against
-pursuing the concerted activities protected by the Act. The-notice
of September 26, making employees subject to discipline or discharge
for solicitation of memberships, on company property and for "coer-
cive" and "abusive" measures either inside or outside company prop-
erty, was so timed and worded as to discredit and discourage union
activity. By the letter issued, to the employees the day before the
Board elections, the respondent suggested that only disadvantages
would flow from union membership and suggested 'none of the pos-
sible advantages; in fact, the respondent indicated that there would
not be any advantages because the respondent was under no com-
pulsion "to grant anything to the Union which it does not want to
grant." The letter then,again stressed the respondent's "right .. .
to abandon the operation of this plant, or-any part of it." This
invitation to vote against the unions, coupled with the implied threat
to close the plant if the unions were successful, constituted a flagrant
violation of the Act.
We find that the respondent, by the foregoing surveillance, threats,
wage increases, anti-union statements, and other conduct, particularly
in connection with the further conduct discussed below, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise, of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7-of the Act.
u Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Jones Foundry & Machine Co., 123 F. (2d) 552 (C. C. A 7)
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. - - \ 335
C. The individual contracts, the discharges, the strike; and the
refusal to reinstate
1. Sequence-of events. ' - ;
About September 12, 1941, Superintendent'Grey, during working
hours,. told John Williams that he and Pope had been: out to Wil-
liams' home on several occasions but had not found him there. Grey
then handed Williams a proposed individual contract of employ-
ment.12• , After reading the document, Williams returned it to Grey,
remarking "that it was an 'insult to the intelligence of the 'power
plant to ask ,them to sign a thing like that." Grey replied. that he
did not "like that attitude," but, nevertheless, requested Williams to
take the contract and "read it over a few times, and maybe [he]
would get a different view,of it." Williams took it. Copies of the
12 The agreement reads as follows :
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
------------------------, an ------------------------- Kankakee Power Plant
AND
Bear Brand Hosiery Co.
Whereas, the parties hereto both recognize the fact the neglect or disertion of
duty in a Power Plant may jeopardize the lives and bodily safety of men and women
and may jeopardize the safety and security of the plant and all its contents :
It is herewith agreed for the consideration as stated below by the Bear Brand
Hosiery Co., which will subsequently be referred to as the Company, as party of
the first part, that I,------------------------ an ----------------------=----
as party of the second part will not leave my appointed line of duty in the Power
Plant without the express approval of my superiors Mr. Erwin Grey, or in' his
absence the Superintendent of the Kankakee Plant It is agreed that at' all times
my duties will be carried out to the best of my ability and in a manner that will
fully serve the production needs of the Kankakee Plant of the Company. It is
further agreed that anything that I wilfully may do or fail to do that will impair
the safety and continuity of operations at the Kankakee Plant or impair the value
of its property will subject me to the penalties under this contract and to liability
for losses sustained. Failure to live up to these stipulations will be sufficient cause
for the termination of my employment with the Company.
It is agreed by the Company, as party of the first part, that in consideration of
the performance of the duties of --------------------, as outlined above, it will
increase his bonus from five percent, as presently paid, to ------------. The bonus
,of ------------ is to be withheld for a period of three months from October 6, 1941,
whereupon- it will be resumed as an addition to the regular hourly or salaried pay.
Full payment of the' bonus money withheld will be paid to the party of the second
part at the termination of his employment with the Company except for, and subject
to the following conditions: First, thirty days of piior written notice of termi-
nation of employment must be given the Company ; second, if the cause of termination
of employment is failure to live up to the agreed stipulations as heretofore outlined
in this contract. In either event, the said bonus pay so withheld will be forfeited
to the Company.
This contract can be ended by either party by the giving of thirty days of'written
notice to the other party, or on the Company's part by the giving of one day of
written notice and thirty days' pay. t
336, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract were also presented to the other powerhouse. employees.13
For the next several days Grey repeatedly asked Williams to sign
the contract, asking him what was wrong with it, and telling him
that Pope wanted it signed. Williams testified that he gave Grey
several reasons for refusing to sign, as follows :
The main reason is because we belong to a union organization
and we can't belong to it, as I see it, and sign this contract;
.. I told him that the boys had -informed me as their repre-
sentative that they were not going to sign that contract," and
that . . . I don't see any use of your continuing asking about
it; . . . I don't see why we couldn't just lay this contract over
to one side and forget about it. . . we will go ahead working
pending this election that is to come up, and if it goes union,
.. . let's go along with it, and, . . . if it don't go union, let's
forget about it.
On September 16, Williams met with Pope, Sr., at the' latter's
invitation. Pope asked Williams what was wrong with the contract.
Williams repeated substantially the same reasons which.,he had given
to Grey, and still insisted he would not sign the agreement: Pope
then inquired whether Williams' decision was final or whether he
wanted to think it over. Williams indicated that he wanted more
la About September 15, Grey handed a contract to Hildebrand and another one to
Hildebrand ' s helper Hildebrand informed Grey that he had already seen a copy of the
agreement and when asked by Grey what he thought of it , Hildebrand replied , " I don't
think nothing of it " That evening , Grey asked Hildebrand if he was going to sign the
contract and when the latter replied in the negative , Grey retorted , "Well, what do you
think Mr Pope is going to say when I . tell Into that none of you boys signed
it" That is going to put me in a bad place " When Hildebiand remained adamant
in his refusal to sign, Grey said, "Well , you are going to have to sign it or you won't
be able to work here " About September 9, powerhouse employee James Riordan received
a telephone call fiom Grey to the effect that Pope, Sr , wanted to see him at the Kankakee
Hotel . When Riordan arrived there Pope handed him a copy of the proposed agreement and
asked him to sign it Rioidan refused, and asked the reason, foi the contract. Pope
replied that " it was for his protection ," and that "no 18 or 20 men in the powerhouse
[ale] going to run this plant." Seveial days later Grey requested Riordan to sign the
contract and Riordan refused "unless the lest of the boys signed it" About September IC,
Pope, Sr, and Grey visited the home of Lester Sovinski, an employee of the power plant,
and Pope asked hint to sign the contract but Sovinski refused Pope then inquired how
long Sovmski had been working foi the respondent and whether lie liked his job Sovmski
replied that he had worked theie foi 15 yeais^and liked his work, whereupon Pope inquired
as to Sovi nski s reason for joining the Union After getting the reply and after some
discussion as to wages, Pope again asked Sovinski to sign Sovinski stated however that
lie had no intention of signing the individual contract At least one employee, Charles
Schmitz, signed a contract Schmitz testified that he signed it about September 14 of 15
on Pope, Si 's, assurance that he would not have to go through a picket line if he signed
a-contract and that it ."didn't say anything on there about strikes or picket lines and
didn't refer to anything like that at all " Despite his,siining of the contract, Schmitz
went on strike with the other powerhouse employees as described below.
14 Williams , Riordan , and Sovinski were the elected representatives of the powerhouse
employees and constituted the negotiating and grievance committee, with Williams as
chairman The powerhouse employees had determined not to sign the contract , and had
agreed among themselves, "that if anyone was let out because of that, that they wouldn t
any of them work
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 337
time. Pope accordingly agreed.to meet with him at 1 p. m. the
following,."day.:. On . September , 17, Williams , accompanied by Rior-
dan and Sovinski, the other two representatives of the powerhouse
employees , went to Pope's office . As the committee , led by Williams,
filed into Pope's office , Pope said , "Just Williams . . . You other
boys stay out." Williams insisted , however , that they come in and
stated, "We either talk as a committee , or we don't talk at all."
Pope asked whether that was the way Williams felt about , it. Wil-
liams replied in the affirmative . Thereupon , Pope said to Williams,
"You are out . Get out." Pope then turned to Riordan and Sovinski
and learning that they felt the same way as did Williams , said to them,
"you are all out, get out." As the men left Pope's office, Pope
followed them and obtained from Riordan and Sovinski their names
and the information that they were then all off duty.
Williams, who worked on the 6 p. m. to 12 midnight shift, reported
for work that afternoon at his usual time but found that his time
card was missing from the rack , and so was unable to punch his
card in the time clock. Williams then asked Chief Engineer Hed-
ditch why his card was missing and the latter replied, "They re-
ported that you quit." Williams protested that he had done no
,such thing. Hedditch then said that he had been instructed by
Grey to call him when Williams arrived. Hedditch then left, evi-
dently , to call Grey. Plant Superintendent Gessner appeared on the
scene and Williams complained to him about his missing time card.
Gessner replied that he too had been informed that Williams had
quit. Williams insisted that he had not quit and was - not going
to quit unless by request . Gessner then informed Williams that
Pope wanted to see him in his office but Williams refused to go
except in a committee with other employees. After waiting a little
while, Williams . received word from Gessner that Pope would see
the same 'committee that had appeared in his office that afternoon.
While waiting to see if Riordan and Sovinski could be reached, since
Riordan was not scheduled to start work until midnight, and
Sovinski not until the following morning at 6'a. m., Williams in-
formed Gessner , "We either all work or nobody don 't work .. .
That is the agreement that the boys come to before that . . ." Wil-
liams then told the other powerhouse employees to work only until
midnight , since . "We are going over to the office and may not come
back here." By this time Riordan had arrived at the plant. Rior-
dan informed Williams that his [Riordan 's] and So 'vinski's time
cards had also been removed from the rack . In the absence of
Sovinski who could not be reached, Williams asked Willis Donovan
and Brueggert to accompany him and Riordan to Pope's office.
When Riordan protested that they had no "business to go over there.
455771-42-vol 40-22
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We haven't got any time cards," Hedditch replied that their "time
cards hadn't been turned in, that they were laying in thereon his
table."" Upon the arrival of the men at Pope's office, they found
Pope, Jr., there. What then occurred appears from Williams' testi-
mony as follows:
He [Pope] said, "Well, Williams, Sovinski and Riordan have
quit."
I said, "No, we haven't quit. We haven't even thought about
quitting."
He kind of pounded down on the table, and
we got evidence here that you quit."
I said, "If you have any evidence, anything
quit, it is something that you have trumped up
have never had no such ideas."
he said, "Yes
that we have
yourself. We
Then he turned and he asked Mr. Donovan and Brueggert if
they were going to work.
They said they were if they all worked.
Then, as I recall, he said again to them if they was going
to work, asked them.
They said if I didn't punch in, that they were not going to
work.
He said, "You have quit, too."
* *
Q. To whom did he say this, "You have quit, too?"
A. To Donovan and Brueggert.
Q. Proceed.
A. And we got up' and walked out of the private office out
into the main office.
Q. Was there,any answer to that remark
A. Well, the answer,-they told him, "No, we haven't quit and
we are not going to quit."
,So I was the ' last one out of the office, and I turned to Mr.
Pope and I told him- . . . "Now, get this straight, Mr.
Pope. Nobody hasn't quit and nobody' is - not going to quit,
unless it is by request."
He said, "You have all, quit."
And we walked out of the door and left.
Of the 16 or 17 powerhouse employees 16 who were on' the respond-
11 Under normal circumstances the time cards of the employees remain in the racks from
day to day and are not removed.
'
The record is not clear whether there were 16 or 17 powerhouse employees on the
respondent 's pay roll as of September 17, 1941. It is clear that only 15 of these employees
desire reinstatement. -
BEAR= BRAND HOSIERY -CO. 339
ent's pay roll of September 17, only one reported for.work, on
September 18; the others went on strike because of the foregoing
events which they construed as a discriminatory discharge of Wil-
liams, Riordan, Sovinski, Donovan, and Brueggert. The respondent
replaced the discharged employees and its striking power-plant
employees with employees taken from various production and main-
tenance departments. At the hearing, the testimony of several Board
witnesses that no production or maintenance employees were ever
transferred to the powerhouse during slack periods or periods of
low production went uncontradicted. On September 30, all the
strikers and the discharged employees made individual unconditional
applications for reinstatement as follows :
The undersigned hereby states that at all times he has been
and is now ready, willing and able to work at his position in the
power plant of the Bear Brand Hosiery Company, which posi-
tion was held by'the undersigned on or about September 17, 1941.
I await your immediate instructions and orders for the con-
tinuation of my work.17
At the Board 'election on October 2, the respondent challenged the
right of the discharged. employees and the strikers to vote on the
ground that they had quit their employment; the latter in turn
challenged the right of the replacement employees to vote. On
October 3, Williams applied personally to Pope, Jr., for reinstate-
ment, stating that he was ready and willing to return to work at any
time but was met by Pope's answer, "You have quit." Other em-
ployee's who likewise personally applied were refused reinstatement.
Up to the close of the hearing herein, none of the discharged
employees or the strikers had been reinstated.
2. Concluding findings
a. Individual contracts
It is clear that the contracts themselves were intrinsically violative
of the Act, in that they proscribed the employees' right to strike
under penalty of discharge.1' Moreover, the timing of, and the other
" They also executed on the same day-a joint application in substantially the same form.
Both the individual and joint applications were personally delivered to the respondent's
office by Williams on September 30.
1s While limitation upon the right to strike may be unobjectionable when reached as a
result of coifective bargaining with the representatives of the employees in an appropriate
unit, the imposition of such a limitation upon individual employees so interferes with
their right to engage in concerted activities as to render futile the exercise of the right to
organize and 'to bargain. National Labor Relations Board V. National Licorice Co., 309
U. S. 350, aff 'g as mod. 104 F.' (2d) 655 (C. C'. A. 2), enf'g as mod . Matter _ of National
Licorice company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America,
Local Union 405, Greater New York and Vicinity , 7 N. L. R . B. 537. See also : National
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances under which the respondent sought to procure the
employees' - signatures to the individual contracts demonstrate that
they- were an integral part of the respondent's plan to frustrate
employee self-organization.1s
We find that the respondent, through these individual contracts
and the circumstances surrounding them, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
b. Williams, Riordan, Sovinski, Donovan, and, Brueggert
Although the respondent averred in its' answer that Williams,
Riordan, Sovinski, Donovan, and Brueggert were not discharged but
voluntarily terminated their employment, the respondent introduced
no evidence in support of this contention, and did not attempt to
explain the facts hereinabove set forth., From these facts, it is clear,
and we find, that Williams, Riordan, and Sovinski did not voluntarily
terminate their employment but were discharged by the respondent
when Pope, Sr., told them, "You are all out, get out." That Pope
so intended is conclusively shown by the removal of these employees'
time cards from their accustomed places in the time-card racks,. and
the subsequent unexplained conduct of the respondent's officials.
Although Donovan and Brueggert expressed their intention to strike
when they told Pope, Jr., that they would not return to work unless
Williams, Riordan, and Sovinski were permitted to work, neverthe-
less, it is also clear that the respondent thereafter discharged them
when Pope, Jr. said, "You have quit, too."- That Pope, Jr., so
intended is evident from the fact that he blanketed Donovan and
Brueggert with Williams, Riordan, and Sovinski when he said, "You
have all quit" That these- employees had not "quit" and had no
intention of quitting is obvious from the undisputed facts set forth
above. The decision to terminate the employment came from the
respondent and not from the employees. We find that the respondent
discharged Williams, Riordan, Sovinski, Donovan, and Brueggert on
,September 17, 1941, and has since refused to reinstate them.
The respondent's officials did not take the witness stand to explain
why the respondent discharged these 5 employees. The circumstances
set forth above convince us, and we find, that the respondent dis-
charged Williams, Donovan, and Sovinski because they had not con-
Labor Relations Board. v. Jahn and Oilier Engraving Company,,123 , F (2d) 589 (C. C. A.
7), enf 'g flatter of Jahn and Oilier Engraving Company and Chicago Photo -Engravers
Union, Local t 5, 24 N L . R. B. 893; National Labor Relations Bovrd v Superior Tanning
Co, 117 F ( 2d) 881 (C C. A. 7), enf', ; Matter of Superior Tanning Company and National
Leather Workers Association , Local 43, 14 N. L. R. B 942. Matter of Great 'Western
Mushroom Company and United Cannery, Agricultural , Packing and Allied Workers of
America, etc , 27 N. L . R B. 352
1 Ibid.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. 341
sented to sign the unlawful contracts, because they sought to act
concertedly with respect to the respondent's unlawful demand that
they sign such contracts, and finally because by such conduct these
employees,-demonstrated their opposition to the respondent's anti-
union campaign. These patently unlawful motives on the part of
the respondent also operated with respect to its discharge of Donovan
and Brueggert. In addition, the respondent discharged these two
employees because they revealed an intent to go on strike in protest
against the respondent's discriminatory discharge of Williams,
Riordan, and Sovinski. This motive was also unlawful.20
Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent, by discharging
Williams, Riordan, Sovinski, Donovan, and Brueggert, on September
17, 1941, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them, discriminated in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in labor organizations and interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
c. The strike and the strikers
The powerhouse employees went on strike because of the foregoing
discriminatory discharges and other interference, restraint, and
coercion. Since the strike was caused by unfair labor practices, the
respondent's flat refusal to reinstate the strikers on application, dis-
placing if necessary the employees taking their places, was in itself
an unfair labor practice.21 Moreover, upon the entire record, we find
that. the respondent was motivated in such refusal by its opposition
to'employee union and concerted activity.
We find that the respondent, by refusing on and after September
30, 19,41, to reinstate the.strikers listed in Appendix A, has discrimi-
nated in regard to hire and tenure and conditions of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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 de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
20 Matter of El Paso Electric Compare/, a corporation and Local Union 585, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al, 13 N L R B 213 , 244, enf 'd 119 F. (d)
581 (C. C. A 5)
21 Stewart Dtie Casting Corp. v. X. L. R B., 114 F. ( 2d) 849 (C. C. A. 7) ; Matter of
Manvnlle Jenckes Cmep et at and Independent Textile Union of America, 30 N. L R B,
382, and cases cited therein It is clear that all the strikers could have been reemployed
on September 30, by dlhplacing the replacement workers
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
Having found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged John
Williams, James Riordan, Lester Sovinski, Willis Donovan, and
Martin Brueggert, and discriminatorily refused to reinstate them,
we will order the respondent to offer to these individuals immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and 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 equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the respond-
ent's discrimination against him to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings'22 during said period.
Having found that the employees listed in Appendix A ceased
work on September 18, 1941, as a consequence of the respondent's
unfair labor practices, and that on and after September 30, 1941,
the respondent discriminated against them in regard to their hire
and tenure and terms and conditions of employment, we will order
the respondent, in order to remedy the unfair labor practices causing
the strike, as well as the subsequent unlawful discrimination, to offer
reinstatement with back pay from September 30, 1941, to these indi-
viduals in the same manner as prescribed in the preceding
paragraph.23
Having found that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the
Act, among other things, by requiring its powerhouse employees to
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. =Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State , county ( municipal , or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v N L R R,
311 U. S. 7.
"Matter of Western Felt Works, etc. and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, etc,
10 N L R. B 407, cases cited therein , and subsequent cases
I
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. ' 343
execute individual - contracts of employment, we will order the
respondent to cease and desist from requiring its 'employees to
execute the individual contracts of employment described above; from-
maintaining such instruments in force or operating under them; and
from requiring its employees that they restrict, in the manner therein
provided, their right to strike,- and engage in other lawful concerted
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection. We will also order the respondent to inform in writing
each of its employees who has been asked to sign an individual con-
tract of employment, that the respondent will no longer require its
employees to execute such instrunients, or any similar instrument, or
maintain such instruments in force, or operate under them. • Nothing
in our order, however, shall be taken to prejudice the assertion by the
employees of any legal rights they may have under any such
instrument. -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 296,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza-,
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. -
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of John Williams, James Riordan, Lester Sovinski, Willis
Donovan, Martin Brueggert, and the employees listed in Appendix A,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing. its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the,
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practice's
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 , (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER-
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10. (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Bear
Brand Hosiery Co., Kankakee, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall: . .
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers, Local 296, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment;
(b) Requiring its employees, individually, and as a condition bf
their being or remaining employed, or otherwise, to execute the indi-
vidual contracts of employment described herein, or any similar
instrument, and maintaining such instruments in force or operating
under them ;
(c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, 'to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John Williams, James Riordan, Lester Sovinski,
Willis Donovan, Martin Brueggert, and the employees listed in Ap-
pendix A immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole each of the employees named in the preceding
paragraph and in Appendix A for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's
discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period;
(c) Inform in writing each of its employees who has been asked
to sign an individual contract of employment that the respondent
will no longer require its employees to execute such instruments, or
any similar instrument, or maintain such instruments in force or
operate under them;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Kankakee, Illi-
nois, plant, and maintain for a period of not less than sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and
(c) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraph 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order,
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO 345
and (3) that its employees are free to become or remain members of
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 296, and
that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee be-
cause of membership or activity in that organization;
(e) 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.
APPENDIX A
Ambrose Benoit Stanley Kuklinski
Paul Clark Emil Lacost
Homer Dufault Logan Miles
Charles Hildebrand George Schlenz
William Jenkins Charles Schmitz
I