D. D. Bean & Sons Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 724 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

.In the Matter of D. D. BEAN & SON S CO. and UNITED FURNITURE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 1-C-.790.-Decided September 16, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 27, 1948, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices,' and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of those
allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and supple-
-mental exceptions 2 to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
.at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, supplemental exceptions and supporting
-briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, but
with the exceptions, modifications, and additions set forth below.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.} We agree with this finding, but
1 Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the Trial Examiner found were violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, except that the
.proviso to the former Section 8 ( 3) has been modified in a manner not material to a determi-
nation of the issues here
2 The Respondent was permitted by the Board to file supplemental exceptions on November
19, 1947, in light of the intervening amendments to the Act
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the Boaid has dele-
gated its powems in connection with this case to a thiee-man panel consisting of the under-
signed Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]
4 The Respondent filed no exceptions to the Trial Examiner's finding in this respect
79 N. L. R. B , No. 98.
724
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 725
only insofar as it is predicated upon the following conduct of the
Respondent as detailed in the Intermediate Report.'
(a) The interrogation of employees Kohanski and Schofield by
Vice-President Vernon Bean at the time they were hired as to their
union affiliation; -
(b) The statement made by Vernon Bean to Kohanski on or about
April 23, 1946, that he believed Kohanski and others were taking an
active part in the union movement and he was going "to take care of
that" ;
(c) Vernon Bean's remark to Kohanski in September 1946, in con-
nection with Bean's conditional offer to reinstate Kohanski following
his discharge, that "if the Labor Board forces me to take you back,
and there is no doubt that the Union will come in, you may find things
rather unpleasant; sort of disagreeable like. Yes, possibly beyond
control" ;
(d) Vernon Bean's attempt in September 1946 to induce Kohanski,
by threats of reprisal and promise of benefit, to withdraw his charge
of discrimination in this case and to sign a statement that he had been
laid off for economic reasons. We find that the Respondent's conduct
in each of the foregoing respects was per se violative of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that employees Hintz
and Kohanski were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section
8 (3) of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, we, like the Trial
Examiner, find that the decision on the part of the Respondent to re-
duce its working force on or about April 24, 1946,,was not in itself
discriminatory. We find, however, that the Respondent utilized the
need to reduce its working force as a means of discrimination by select-
ing Hintz and Kohanski for lay-off because it believed they were
active on behalf of the Union.
Hintz, the leader of the union movement, carried on his union activi-
ties openly in the plant in the presence of his fellow employees 8 and
supervisors. Vernon Bean's remarks to Kohanski on April 23, 1946,
5 In paraphrasing some of these statements taken from credible testimony in the record,
the Trial Examiner has failed to include material portions of these statements which we
describe herein.
"See N L. R. B v Continental Oil Co., 159 F. (2d) 326, 328 ; N. L. R. B. v. Elastic
Stopnut Corp , 142 F. (2d) 371, 377.
T For reasons stated in Matter of the Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 N L R B 577, we do not
adopt the Trial Examiner ' s unfair labor practice finding with respect to the "forced
assembly" aspect of President D D Bean's speech of April 24, 1946 Nor , for reasons
stated in prior decisions , do we base our 8 (1) finding, as did the Trial Examiner. on a
course of conduct or "totality" of conduct theory. See Matter of The Bailey Company, 75
N L R B 941.
8 That information of these activities was likely to reach management is further shown
by credible testimony that certain of the female operators ordinarily brought such matters
to the attention of Gelinas , the plant superintendent
809095-49-vol 79-47
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as discussed in detail above, indicate the Respondent 's admitted aware-
ness of Kohanski 's previous activities in a union of employees at
another plant in town and a firm belief by the Respondent that
Kohanski was assisting the organization of employees at the Re-
spondent 's plant. In point of service with the Respondent, Hintz
and Kohanski were the two most senior of the machinists hired since
September 1945. While recognizing the factor of seniority as a
standard , the Respondent alleges that special considerations prompted
it to retain employees with less seniority than Hintz and Kohanski.
Thus, the Respondent contends that Sirois and Koski were retained as
veteran trainees ; that De Grampre was retained because of his quali-
fications as a millwright ; and that Maurice Reynolds was retained to
act as assistant to his brother , Foreman Leonard Reynolds.
Under the facts in this ease, we, unlike ' the Trial Examiner, are
unable to accept, as plausible and convincing , this explanation ad-
vanced by the Respondent for departing from seniority standards in
effecting the lay-offs . The Respondent was under no compulsion to
retain Sirois and Koski as reinstated veterans . The Respondent made
no effort to show, nor can we perceive , any compelling advantage to be
gained by it in keeping these employees as machinist trainees while
laying off Hintz and Kohanski , who were qualified, experienced,, and
productive machinists . De Grampre was hired as a machinist and
utilized by the Respondent solely for machinist work both before and
after the lay-offs. There is no evidence that de Grampre was more
qualified to perform such machinist work for the Respondent than
Hintz and Kohanski. Nor are we persuaded , in these circumstances,
as to the Respondent 's bona fides in especially retaining Maurice Rey-
nolds allegedly to act as assistant foreman under his brother, Leonard.
Vernon Bean's statements to Kohanski , discussed above, that he
knew of the union movement in the plant ; that he suspected Kohanski
and others of being active union proponents , and that he was going
"to take care of that," coupled with the Respondent's departure from
seniority standards in the selection of Hintz and Kohanski for lay-off,
clearly demonstrates an affirmative design on the part of the Respond-
ent to rid itself of the two employees 'believed to be responsible for
bringing the Union into the plant . Moreover, the Respondent's offer
in September 1946 to reinstate Kohanski with full back wages if he
would withdraw his unfair labor practice charges before the Board
and sign a statement that he had been laid off because of lack of
work, further supports our conclusion as to the Respondent 's discrim-
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 727
inatory motivation. Accordingly, we find that Hintz 9 and Kohanski
were discriminatorily selected for lay-off in order to discourage mem-
bership in the Union "
3. We concur in the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Coll and
Schofield were not discriminatorily discharged, as alleged, and find'
that they were laid off pursuant to the Respondent's economic reduc-
tion in force. Although the circumstances surrounding their selec-
tion for lay-off raise a suspicion of discrimination, there is no evidence
that they participated in the attempt to unionize the plant or that
the Respondent had any reason to believe that they were active union
supporters. We therefore find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
record fails to support the allegations of discrimination as to them.
4. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the discharge
of Victoria McGinnis allegedly for the infraction of a, company rule
was a mere pretext and that the actual motive for her discharge was
a belief by the Respondent that she had been a protagonist of the
Union. In reaching this conclusion, we place particular reliance upon
the admission of D. D. Bean. Jr.. to McGinnis at the Christmas party
in 1946 that he believed her denial as to any participation in the Union,
but that "they" 11 had been given to understand that she had been
involved in the union organizational campaign.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , D: D. Bean &
Sons Co., East Jaffrey , New Hampshire ,, and its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the United Furniture Workers
of America , C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of,employment or any term or condition of employment;
we find no merit to the Respondent ' s contention in its supplemental exceptions and
brief that Hintz was ] aid off for inefficiency The record shows that 2 months after Hintz
was hired his work was found unsatisfactory and lie was given an alternative by the
Respondent of taking a cut in pay and a lesser assignment or of being discharged Hintz
chose the former , and his efficiency on the new assignment evoked no criticism from the
Respondent for the 5-month period preceding his lay-off
to N L R B. v Bird Machine Co , 161 F ( 2d) 589 , 592 , utter of Morrison Turning Co.,
Inc. 77 N L R B 670
11 Like the Trial Examiner, we interpret "they" in this context to mean the Respondent's
officials
I
728- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
„labor organizations, to join or assist United Furniture Workers of
America, C. I. 0., or any other labor brganization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or,
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Phillip Hintz immediate and full reinstatement to the
position which he occupied on April 24,1946, prior to the Respondent's
discrimination against him, or to a substantially equivalent position,
-without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Phillip Hintz, A. James Kohanski, and Victoria
McGinnis for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of
the Respondent's discrimination agaiiist him or her, in the manner
provided in the, section of the Intermediate Report herein entitled
"The remedy";
(c) Post at its' plant in East Jaffrey, New Hampshire, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report herein marked "Appen-
dix A." 12 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint insofar as it alleges
(a) that the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by a speech
delivered by its president, D. D. Bean, on April 24, 1946, and (b) that
the Respondent discharged Albert Coll and James Schofield iii viola-
tion of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,-dismissed-
12 This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER" and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER " In the event that
this Order is enforced by a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted in
the notice , before the words "DECISION AND ORDER " the words "DECREE OF THN7
UNITED 'STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING "
D: D. BEAN"- W SONS ' CO. 729
-INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Thomas H . Ramsey. for the Board.
Messrs Robert IV . Upton . and Fa edei ick K. Upton, of Concord. N. H, for the
respondent.
Mr. Lubert Taylor , of Gardner , Mass , and Mr . William Gilbert , of Boston , Mass.,
for'the Union.
STATEmr,NT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge filed on October 25, 1946, by United Furniture
Workers of America, C I 0., herein ,called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
First Region (Boston. Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated March 7,
1947, against D D Bean & Sons Co.. Jaffrey, New Hampshire, herein called
the respondent The complaint alleged that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, the second amended charge, and a notice of hearing were served upon
the respondent and the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) and (3) oPthe Act by discrimi-
natorily discharging, on April 24, 1946, Albert Coll, Phillip Hintz, and James
Schofield : on April 29. 1946, Victoria McGinnis: and on May 2. A .James Kohan-
ski, because of their Union activities and thereby discouraging membership in
the Union, and (2) that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by
(a) questioning employees about their union affiliations, (b) requiring em-
ployees to attend a speech made by an official of the respondent to discourage
union activity, and (c) offering an employee economic benefits and a payment
of cash if he would withdraw his claim for 'reinstatement filed under the Act.
In its answer, filed March 18. 1947, the respondent denied generally its
commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and made
certain affirmative allegations concerning the discharges. '
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from April 7 to April 10. 1947, inclusive,,
at East Jaffrey, New Hampshire. before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly-
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent appeared.
by counsel, and the Union by representatives. All parties participated in the
hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce- evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a joint motion of, coun-
sel for the Board and counsel for the respondent, to conform the pleadings to the
proof adduced as to dates, spelling of names, etc. Ruling was reserved upon a
motion by counsel for the respondent to dismiss all allegations of the complaint
as to the discharged persons.
The hearing was closed after oral argument before the Trial Examiner by
counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent After the close of the
hearing, on May 3, 1947, counsel for the respondent filed with the Trial Examiner
11eiptests for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law The Trial Examiner accepts
the following findings pi oposed by counsel for the respondent : 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12,
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
13, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, and rejects proposed findings Nos 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; 34, 35, and 36.'
i On the same date counsel for the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the com-
plaint as "to each and every charge therein contained." Since the respondent's
answer admits certain allegations of the complaint, as to commerce matters, it
is assumed that this motion relates only to the allegations of unfair labor prac-
tices. In any event, this motion and the motion to dismiss made orally at the
hearing by counsel for the respondent are disposed of in the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE RUSINFSS OF THE RESPONDFNT
The respondent, D. D. Bean & Sons Co., is a New Hampshire corporation, hav-
ing its principal office and place of business in East Jaffrey, New Hampshire,
where it is engaged in the selling of book matches and advertising, and in the
manufacture, sale and distribution of imprinted book matches.
In the conduct of its business the respondent purchases annually raw materias,
consisting principally of paper products , chemicals , glue, and printers ' ink, valued
in excess of $200,000 of which more than 90% is shipped to the respondent from
points outside the State of New Hampshire During a similar period the re-
spondent manufactures finished products and sells book match advertising valued
in excess of $300,000, of which more than 90% is.shipped and sold to points outside
the State of New Hampshire?
1 II THE ORGANIZATION IN%OLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, C10. is a Jabot organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues and relevant, undisputed events
The respondent 's book-match making plant , which has been in operation since
1938, is located in a small community of about 2500 population . It employs
approximately 150 persons, many ,of whom are , women opel ators of machines
-which automatically assemble matches and their - book covers . Also employed
is\a relatively small number of machinists-before the end of the war about 5---
who keep the machinery in repair , and make machines and spare parts.
During the period herein concerned the respondent had in operation 3 match
machines and 12 assembly machines . In late 1945 plans were made for doubling
its production of book matches. These plans called for the construction of at
least 3 new match or stripper machines and 8 or 9 assembly machines. The
respondent also considered the manufacture of match and assembly machines
i For purposes of accurate ruling, the Trial Examiner has rejected several of the pro-
posed findings as numbered , although as will be noted hereinafter certain portions of such
proposed findings have been adopted . As numbered by counsel for the respondent, there
are many findings of fact proposed and contained in the same paragraph.
3 The above findings are based upon a stipulation of counsel for the Board and for the
respondent at the hearing.
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 731
for sale to other manufacturers . During the latter part of 1945 the floor space
in the machine shop was enlarged fourfold and-new machine tools were added
for the construction of match and assembly machines
The President and founder of the respondent is D D Bean His son , Vernon,
is general manager ; and another son, D D Bean , Jr, is treasurer and sales
manager . Leonard Reynolds is the foreman of the machine shop; Arthur
Gelinas is production manager ; and George Chamberlain is assistant production
manager. All of these individuals , of management capacity, are involved in
evidence relating to the issues in this case.
The major issues include the termination of employment of one girl assembler
and four machinists . In substance , the question posed is whether these em-
ployees were discriminatorily discharged , thereby discouraging membership in
the Union , or whether , as to the machinists , they were laid off in an economic
reduction of force and , as to'the female employee , her discharge was solely a
disciplinary measure.
The principal events occurred in the latter part of April and early May, 1946.
There is no conflict in evidence establishing that: ( 1) the first organizational
meeting of the Union was scheduled for April 25; (2) that management was
aware of the plans at least by the afternoon of April 24; ( 3) that on the after-
noon of April 24, D. D. Bean made a speech concerning the Union'to the assembled
employees ; ( 4) that Phillip Hintz, leader of the effort to organize , was one
of the 3 machinists discharged in the afternoon of April 24; and (5 ) that April
22 is the date appearing upon both a letter to employees announcing the Union
meeting , and a letter to the respondent , from a supply house, 'informing it that
certain, equipment , about which the respondent had previously made inquiry,
could not be delivered for 20 months after placement of an order . It is also
undisputed that none of about 30 female employees, to whom invitations were
mailed, attended the Union meeting on April 25 and that Victoria McGinnis,
who talked with the Union organizer outside .the hall on the night of the meeting,
was ordered , the next day , to be discharged.
B. The speech of D D. Bean on April 24, 19116
During the 3 years of the plant operation before April 1946, according to
the testimony of Vernon Bean, the respondent had never been "bothered" by a
union. During his testimony, President D. D. Bean expressed his attitude
toward self-organization as follows :
. . . I was the most surprised man in this courtroom the other day to
see one of my former employees tell me that lie was the instigator of bring-
ing a union in. Had I been told that by anyone else but him, I would have
called the man a liar. I didn't believe it. I didn't believe I had an employee
that would do that to me. I didn't believe it.
By Wednesday afternoon, April 24, a number of the girl employees had brought
with them to the plant circulars and the letters announcing a meeting to be held
the following night. It also appears that a rumor was circulating to the effect
that unless the employees joined the Union, the respondent's sources of supply
would be cut off. After a management conference, at about 3 o'clock, Gelinas
sent instructions throughout the plant for all employees to assemble. Em-
ployees about to leave the first shift and employees arriving for the second shift
gathered as instructed.! D. D. Bean addressed them. In substance, during his
talk of 5 or 10 minutes, Bean told them: (1) that they could go to the Union
732 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting if they wished to; (2) that he had never gone out looking for trouble
and hoped that none of his employees would do so. ( 3) that his door was always
open to anyone with grievances ; ( 4) that if any of the employees were dissatis-
fied he would help them to get work elsewhere , and (5 ) that the rumors regard-
ing the Union control of sources of supply were baseless Bean also cited the
many benefits his employees were already receiving , such as accident and sickness
insurance and Christmas bonuses 3
That Bean intended by his speech to discourage attendance at the Union meet-
ing is implicit in the following quotation from his testimony.
I didn ' t want them to reel that I was trying to-influence them In fact,
we have an intelligent people. The local people of this community as a
whole, in my opinion, are intelligent , an intelligent class of people, very
intelligent . And if I had gone in there and threatened then or told them
something else-which would be just what the Union would have loved me
to do , it would have been forcing sonic of my people to -o to the Union
Well, I didn 't propose to do it that way. I wanted to give them an op-
portunity to do as they saw fit. Not as I wanted them to do . I believe
out of respect to me, hardly any people would go under those conditions.
That is what I think my people think of me.
'The speech had the effect he sought None of the girls went into the meeting
hall the next evening, and only one male employee , in addition to three discharged
on April 24 , was present.
C. The discharges of Phillip Hintz, A James Kohanskt, Albeit Coll, and James
Schofield -
1 Events leading up to the discharges
From September, 1945. to April 24, 1946. the respondent hired nine new, or
former employees, including the four above named. who thereafter worked in the
machine shop' Some of these employees were assigned 'to a second or night shift,
which was started when Albert Coll was hired on October 22. 1945. The night
shift continued in operation. with a varying number of employees, until April 24,
1946, when it was discontinued. Since that date no new machine shop help has
been employed.
Relevant facts concerning Hintz, Kohanski, Coll and Schofield are summarized
below.
Phillip Hintz. Hintz was hired by Vernon Bean on October 1, 1945. He was
told that he might later be assigned to a night shift, and upon the establishment
of a second shift about 3 weeks later, Hintz began to alternate, working (lays for
2 weeks and nights for a similar period. During the week beginning April 22,
1946, Hintz was working days.
3 The above findings as to Bean ' s speech rest upon the credible testimony of witnesses
called by the Board and by the respondent Bean himself denied that lie said anything
on this occasion except to answer the inquiry 'about the possible cutting. off of supplies.
He declared that he did not believe he spoke for more than 1 minute At another point,
however, he stated that he told the employees that the "meeting or the Union" was "strictly"
their business
4-Two of this number, Sirois and Koski, were given employment as veteran trainees;
Koski was entitled to employment foi at least 1 year, since the respondent was his em-
ployer at the time he entered the military sei vice.
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 733
About 2 months after being hired, Hintz' rate of pay was cut by,the super-
intendent. Hintz protested to Vernon Bean, but was told that if he was dis-
satisfied with the pay he could quit. The employee thereupon visited a union
organizer in a neighboring community. After a number of unsuccessful efforts
to meet Lubert Taylor, representative of the Union, a conference was held in
March 1946, when plans were discussed to organize the respondent's employees.
It was decided to delay, temporarily, active organization because of the feeling
which had been aroused among townspeople by a strike then in existence in
another plant of the same town. Hintz and Taylor agreed to try first to interest
the lower paid female employees in the Union, and from time cards Hintz com-
piled a list of about thirty names. The list was given to Taylor, and on Friday,
April 19, the Union representative arranged to use a local meeting hall the follow-
ing Thursday, April 25. In the meantime, Hintz told a number of the girls
in the plant of his activities.
On Monday, April 22, letters of invitation and circulars were sent by Taylor
to Hintz and to the girls on the list Hintz received several circulars on Tuesday
and placed them on top of his tool box on the work bench. During the afternoon
and the next clay. he gave circulars to A James Kohanski and other employees 5
Hintz attended the plant meeting, previously described, at which D. D. Bean
spoke on Wednesday afternoon, and upon retuin to his work was sent by Foreman
Reynolds to Production Manager Gelinas. Gelinas informed him that due to
shortage of materials the respondent was going to discontinue building assembly
machines and that it was necessary to lay him and others off. Hintz was given
his pay in full and since that date has not been recalled to work.
A. James J ohanskii. Kohanski i% as hired in the latter part of September 1945.
Before his employment by the respondent he had worked for another company
in the same small town, where he had been an active member of a union Upon
applying for work with the respondent, Kohanski was asked by Vernon Bean
if he belonged to a union. Kohanski replied that he had belonged when with the
other company, because other employees did
Kohanski was hired as a laborer on the "strippers," or match machines. He
was told by Vernon Bean that he might later give hum work in the muachine shop,
which lie hoped to expand After about 2 weeks of work on the strippers,
Kohanski was transferred to the machine shop Despite the claim of Vernon
Bean at the hearing that Kohanski was considered to be a part of the night
shift, from the date of his hiring until April 24, 1946, the employee was never
assigned to, or worked upon, the night shift.
In the early afternoon of Tuesday, April 23, Kohanski went to another part
of the plant and obtained from Phillip Hintz a Union circular A few minutes
after returning to his machine with the circular, lie was approached by Vernon
Bean. Bean told him that lie understood a union was trying to organize, and
informed him that it he was not satisfied with "the way the place was being
run" he could quit. Kohanski remarked that lie was less worried at the moment
about this matter than about the fact that lie was going to the hospital the next
"On direct examination Hintz testified that lie did not work on Tuesday On cross
examination he testified that he was sick on Tuesday but could not remembei, in effect,
whether or not he was sick the entire day His time card shows that he worked Tuesday
afternoon , April 23 The testimony of Kohanski establishes that he received a circular
from Hintz on Tuesday afternoon.
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day Bean then inquired as to his hospital appointment and finally told the
employee to see him upon his ietmn before he event to work
Later during the same afternoon Kohanski was summoned by Vernon Bean.
In substance, Bean told him that he knew the Union was to hold a meeting
on Thursday. that he believed the employee was taking an active part in assist-
ing the Union, and that he did not want the CIO in the plant. After close of
work that day Kohanski approached Vernon Bean in the town square, and
remarked that he was worried about his job. Bean told him that he had known
of his union activities at the other plant, had hired him against his better judg-
ment, but had hoped the employee had learned a 'lesson. Bean then said he
would talk it over with him further when he got out of the hospital 7
Kohanski reported to Bean on May 2. Bean told him that because of material'
shortages it would be necessary to "let him go" f u some mont:'s, but that ns for
the Union matter, he was "in the clear" and need not woiry x
Kohanski's job was not discontinued. Foreman Reynolds testified that he and
his brother did most of his work after Kohanski left.
On May 6 the respondent was notified by the Regional Office of the Board that
the Union had filed charges alleging that Kohanski's discharge , among others
was in violation of the Act.
In September 1946, Vernon Bean called Kohanski to the plant late one night
and, in substance , offered to put him back'to work and to pay him a sum of money
equal to his back wages if he would withdraw his charges and sign a statement
to the effect that he had been laid off due to lack of work. Kohanski demurred,
and asked for time to consider the matter. Bean further told him that if lie
returned he would be expected to mind his own business , and that if the Board
ordered reinstatement and the Union came into the plant, Kohanski might find
things "disagreeable ." Bean then said that he would call Kohanski soon. A
few days later Bean called and was told by Mrs. Kohanski that her husband had
left a message that he was ready to go back to work whenever the job was ready
but did not want to sign any papers. Bean replied that that was all right, and
that he thought the job would be ready in about a week. About a week later,
after conferring with his attorney, Bean wrote to Kohanski, asking him to report
for work on September' 30. On the Saturday before September 30, Kohanski
went to the plant. He told Vernon Bean that he would take the job, but wanted
to know about the back pay. Bean replied, in effect, that there would be no
O 'Vernon Bean admitted having approached Kohanski on Tuesday , and having told him
that he had some "bad news " for him , and then having withheld it when learning that
the employee was going to the hospital . Bean denied having said anything about the
Union, but did not deny having told Kohanski that he could quit if not satisfied . Kohan-
ski's version is more reasonable to believe , in view of the self-contradictory nature of
Bean's testimony Bean testified that be told Foreman Reynolds , the preceding Friday,
not to inform Kohanski and others that they were to be discharged until just before they
were to be released on Wednesday . Both Reynolds and Production Manager Gelinas testi-
fied that it was not until Wednesday afternoon that other employees involved were told
of their lay-off. Bean's testimony makes clear the fact that when he spoke to Kohanski
on Tuesday he 'did not know the employee was to go to the hospital the following day
Bean offered no credible explanation for having selected Kohanski on Tuesday as the only
one to be informed of the impending discharge. 1
7 Bean did not specifically deny any parts of either the second or third conversations
with Kohanski that day, He testified . however, that he only talked with Kohanski once on
Tuesday. The Trial Examiner cannot consider what is, in effect, a general denial, to be
sufficient to negate Kohanski ' s detailed testimony.
8 Bean denied referring to the Union on this occasion . For reasons set forth in the foot-
note next but one above, the Trial Examiner does not accept the denial as credible.
D. D. BEAN & SOTS S CO. 735
back pay, and Kohanski declared that he would refer the matter to the Board.
Bean told him that he could see the President of the United States or the Mayor
of Jaffrey.'
Kohanski returned to work on September 30 and since then has been regularly
employed.
Albert Coll. Coll, formerly employed by the respondent as machinist and as
foreman, was rehired by Vernon Bean during the latter part of October 1945,
after his return from military service In accordance with the respondent's
plans for expansion, previously described, a second shift of machinists was
started, and Coll was placed in charge of them as foreman. In addition to
caring for maintenance work and making spare parts, Coll completed one new
assembly machine before his discharge in April 1946, and partly completed
another At the hearing Vernon Bean characterized Coll as an excellent worker.
When Coll reported for work at 4 o'clock on April 24, 1946, he was given his
pay in full by Production Manager Gelinas. who told him he had been instructed
to lay off the night shift. About an hour later Coll went to Vernon Bean for
further information Bean explained that there was a shortage of material and
added that because the Union was "trying to get in," he did not want too many
employees.'0 Bean also reminded Coll that he had recently asked for a raise
which the company could not afford and stated that he believed Coll would make
more money at some other plant.
Coll took no part in the effort to organize the respondent's employees, and
there is no evidence that any member of management. befoi e the lay off, believed
him to be active or interested in such organization. Coll testified that he did not
see the Union circular until Thursday night, the day after his discharge, and
that he had no real knowledge previous to that time of Union activity at the
plant.
James Schofield. Having previously been employed by the respondent as a
printer, Schofield was rehired by Vernon Bean on April 15, 1946, to work as a
machinist on the second shift. under his brother-in-law, Albert Coll. When
interviewing him for re-employment, Bean asked Schofield if he ever belonged to
a union. Schofield replied that he had belonged to a union in another town.
On Tuesday. April 23, Gelinas came to the employee at his machine and asked
him what he thought of unions Schofield replied that lie had belonged to one,
and that he would join if the majority did at the plant.
Schofield reported for work about 4.30 p in. on April 24. He was told by Coll
that his check was awaiting him at the office. Gelinas informed' him that the
' Bean flatly denied that he had offered any money to Kohanski, at any time. According
to his testimony, Kohanski himself raised the question the night he was called to the fac-
tory, and the employee was then told there would be no back pay, that he was not being
reinstated under a Board order, and that he could take the job offered or leave it. The
Trial Examiner, having closely observed the witnesses while testifying on this matter,
accepts as more credible the testimony of Kohanski and his wife, upon which. the above
findings rest. Furthermore, Bean's insistence that Kohanski was in fact a "night shift"
employee, in the face of the employee's actual work record and his own testimony that 2
weeks after hiring him he changed plans and transferred him to the machine shop under
Reynolds, the day foreman cash disiiedit upon his entire testimony regarding this
employee.
'0 In substance, Bean's testimony corroborated that of Coll, except that he denied making
any reference to the Union Since Vernon Bean had been present at his father's speech
to all employees that same afternoon , it is reasonable to believe that he also referred to
the Union in his talk with Coll
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lay-off was caused by lack of material . but asked him to "hang around a few
weeks," as they would want him back Since that date, however , he has not
been recalled to work.
2 Conclusions as to the four discharges
It is the contention of counsel for the Board that all four employees named
above were discharged on April 24 to discourage Union membership . The re-
spondent contends that all were laid off due to a reduction in force necessitated
0
by lack of certain equipment.
In support of the latter contention Vernon Bean testified , in substance, that
on Friday, April 19 , he instructed Foi eman Reynolds to select foi lay-off, the
following Wednesday, a number of men working on or hired for the night shift,
because the supply of new sprocket chain, used to-make new equipment , would be
delayed for nearly 2 years " According to Bean , lie was in telephonic com-
munication with a representative of the supply company on April 18 , and was
told that the delivery date for chain would be 20 months. The respondent in-
troduced into evidence a letter, dated April 22, from the supply house, which
states :
With reference to your telephonic inquiry of April 18 regarding Special
#40 Chains and Sprockets for your proposed Match Stripper Machines, we
wish to advise that we can schedule this material for delivery within 20
months after the receipt of i our order in this office.
Bean testified that this letter was in confirmation of information he had already
received over the telephone on April 18. The language of the letter is clear.
It is in answer to a telephonic inquiry, and not in confirmation of an answer
already given. Furthermore, it indicates that as late as April 22, the supply
company had received no definite order for the material desired by the respond-
ent. Under all the circumstances the Trial Examiner is not convinced that on
April 18, Bean knew of the 20-month delivery date, or that on April 19, lie and
Reynolds selected any employee for la.N-off These citcunistances include the
,probabilities inherent in the situation described by Bean and Reynolds. Ac-
cepting at face value their testimony that, in order to avoid ill feeling. no
-advance notice was to be given to the employees, it is reasonable to believe that
if Bean had been in possession of the chain information on April 18, any resultant
lay-off would have been made on the following (lay, the end of the workweek.
In any event, the Trial Examiner believes-that the respondent did receive the
letter from the supply house on April 23 or April 24, almost coincidentally with
its first knowledge that efforts at self-organization were being made among its
employees and that upon receipt of the letter Bean decided to discontinue the
second shift and suspend plans for building new machinery. Since April 24,
1946, and until the time of the hearing. no second shift has operated, and no new
employees have been hired for the machine shop.
Although the circumstances are not without elements which raise some doubt;
the evidence does not support a finding that discontinuance of the second shift
It By implication in Bean's testimony and in the Findings of Fact proposed by its counsel,
the respondent claims that inability to obtain punch presses also caused the lay-off Since
Bean admitted that be knew, early in February. that delivery of punch presses would be
delayed for a year or more, and that he nevertheless hired two additional employees for
the machine shop thereafter, it is plain that the lack of punch presses was not a contribut-
ing cause for the lay-offs in April.
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. -737
or the discharge of its foreman were discriminatory within the meaning of the
Act. The release of the foreman of an abandoned shift was a reasonable event,
particularly in view of Coll's admitted dissatisfaction , with, his salary. The
record is barren of any evidence that Coll was either active in , or even aware-
of, the efforts being made to organize the respondent 's employees Nor does the-
evidence warrant an inference that the respondent, before the Union meeting
of April 25, suspected him of being sympathetic toward such efforts.
Of the six employees hired in and since the fall of 1945 and working regularly
under Coll on April 24, 1946, two were dischai ged that day-Schofield and Craw-
ford . Two of the remaining four, Sirois and Koski , were veteran trainees; an-
other was retained because of his qualifications as a millwright ; and the fourth,
Maurice Reynolds, became assistant to his brother on the first shift. Both of
the last two mentioned had greater seniority than Crawford and Schofield Craw-
ford was included among the navies of employees in the original charge filed
by the Union He was re-employed in May 1946, and assigned to the respondent's
drafting room under the Government training program for servicemen. On Octo-
ber 28, 1946, the Board's Regional Director notified the respondent that the
Union's charge had been amended to exclude the name of Crawford.
As to Schofield, while the case is not without doubt, since it has been found'
that on the day before his discharge, in reply to an inquiry from Gelinas, he had
replied that he would join a union if the majority did, the evidence does not
reasonably support a finding that he was selected for discharge to discourage mem-
bership in the Union or for any suspected activity on his part in behalf of the
Union.
The facts lead to other conclusions, however, in the case, of Hintz and Kohanski.
Both had been hired before Coll, and before the second shift was, established.
Neither of them was a regular eniplovee on the second shift-Kohanski had,
never worked on it. The testimony of Foreman Reynolds establishes the fact
that the jobs performed by both of these employees did not cease upon the deci-
sion to postpone the new machinery project: on the contrary their work was
assigned to other employees after April 24 "
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the respondent seized upon the
opportunity, provided by its decision to postpone building machines and to dis-
continue the night shift, as a pretext for ridding itself of Hintz, leader of the
Union movement in the plant, and of Kohanski, known by Vernon Bean to have
been active in a union of employees it ,niothei plant in town and believed to be
assisting the oiganization of employees at the respondents plant. In view of
the small size of the plant, and of Gelinas' prompt and admitted reporting of
Union activities to management, it is reasonable to infer, and the Trial Examiner
finds, that the respondent had knowledge of. or at least suspected, Hintz' leader-
ship in organizing.
In summary, it is concluded and found: (1) that employees Hintz and Kolianski
were disciiniinatorily discharged on April 24 and May 2, respectively. in order to
discourage membership in the Union; (2) that by such discrimination and by
other conduct, including (a) D D. Bean's speech to all employees at it forced
"Reynolds testified that he and his brother did Kohauski ' s work , and that employee-
Corpi peiforined the duties of Hintz. -
-8. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL= LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assembly during working hours on April 24," (b) the questioning of employees
Kohanski and Schofield upon their hiring as to their union affiliations, (c) the
anti-Union remarks made by Vernon Bean to Kohanski both before and after
his discharge, and (d) by the efforts of Vernon Bean in September 1946, to per-
suade Kohanski to withdraw his claim for reinstatement filed under -the Act ;
and-by the totality of such conduct the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act; and (3) that the discharges of Coll and Schofield were not discriminatory
within the meaning of the Act.
D The discharge of Victoria B. MoGrintus
1. Events bearing upon the discharge
Victoria McGinnis began work for the respondent in 1941 or 1942. She was
a regular operator of an assembly machine. She was a capable employee. There
is no evidence that she had ever been disciplined, charged with misconduct, until
April 6, 1946, the day after the Union meeting.
McGinnis took no part in the organizing campaign. On the contrary, she re-
fused to assist Hintz obtain a list of her fellow employees. On Thursday night,
April 25, however, she and three other female employees talked with the Union
representative outside the meeting hall. She worked the following day. Dur-
ing the afternoon she stepped into the men's room, a few feet away from her
machine. Assistant Production Manager George Chamberlain, who served as
her foreman, called to her and told her that she must not smoke in there. She
left the men's room and went to the ladies' room, at the opposite end of the as-
sembly line. Before-the beginning of her shift on Monday, the next working
day, Chamberlain came to her home and told her that she had been discharged
for smoking in the men's room.
She was recalled on or about September 26, 1946, and since then has been
regularly employed by the respondent.
McGinnis attended the 1946 Christmas party of the respondent's employees.
During a conversation with D. D. Bean, Jr, previously identified as treasurer of
the company, she protested that she did not understand why she had been fired,
and insisted that she had had nothing to do with the Union. Bean told her that
he believed her, but that "they" had been given to understand, through Gelinas
and a girl employee, that she had been involved in the organization. Bean urged
her not to feel badly about it, since she was back at work 14
13 See Clark Bros . Co., Inc. , 70 N. L. R. B. 802 , where the Board said :
Such freedom [ to receive aid and advice ] is meaningless , however, unless the em-
ployees are also free to determine whether or not to receive such aid, advice and in-
formation To force employees to receive such aid, advice, and information impairs
that freedom ; it is calculated to, and does , interfere with the selection of a repre-
sentative of the employees ' choice. And this is so , wholly apart from the fact that
the speech itself may be privileged under the Constitution.
Furthermore , Bean's speech was not the sole act of the, respondent with respect to the
Union's organizing efforts, it was an- inseparable part of a pattern of conduct.
14 Bean corroborated most of McGinnis ' testimony concerning this conversation, but
denied that he had told her that Gelinas had reported that she was involved in the Union
activities . Gelinas, although a witness , did not testify on this point Bean admitted, in
effect , that he did not consider smoking in the men ' s room was "serious." Under the cir-
cumstances , the Trial Examiner considers the testimony of McGinnis , as to the disputed
statement , as the more credible As noted heretofore , it was Gelinas who reported to his
superiors that an organization meeting was to be held and induced D. D. Bean to call the
plant meeting.
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO.
2. Conclusions as to the discharge
739
The testimony of both Gelinas and McGinnis is in general agreement that the
employee had been warned about smoking in the men's room before the discharge.
Likewise, the testimony of Chamberlain and McGinnis is in general agreement
that on Friday, April 26, Chamberlain ordered her out of the'men's room,-where-
upon she went to the ladies' room and smoked. Later the same afternoon, after
the change of the shift, Chamberlain reported the incident to Gelinas and Gelinas
ordered her discharge.
It is plain that McGinnis violated instructions. Since the respondent urges such
N iolation as the cause of her discharge, the question to be resolved is whether
the discharge was, in fact, a disciplinary measure or whether the incident was
used by Gelinas merely as a pretext while the real reason stemmed from his belief
that she was involved in Union activity, and was-rooted in his desire to dis-
courage organization, as contended, by counsel for the Board.
Chamberlain had authority to discharge her, but did not do so. He did not
recommend her discharge. It appears from his testimony that his report to
Gelinas was no more than casual. The testimony of at least two management
witnesses for the respondent-D. D. Bean, Jr., and Foreman Reynolds-estab-
lishes firmly the fact that the dereliction was minor. (D. D. Bean, Jr., testified:
"I wouldn't think it was serious. , ." Reynolds testified frankly that it is
common practice for girls to go into the men's room, and that he had seen several
girls in there frequently, even up to a time just before the hearing.) Gelinas
.admitted that McGinnis is the only girl ever discharged for the offense.
The Trial Examiner is aware that supervisors may not impartially impose dis-
cipline. , Thus the fact that Chamberlain observed the infraction but took no
action does not determine that Gelinas' decision was therefore discriminatory.
It does, however, focus inquiry upon Gelinas' actual motive in discharging one of
several girls who consistently and over a long period were violating his instruc-
tions. And it casts serious doubt upon the contention that-the penalty arose
only from infraction of a rule
Gelinas testified that it was lie who had brought news of the organizational
efforts to his superiors the day before the meeting, and that D. D. Bean had
made the speech upon his insistence. It has been found that Gelinas discrimi-
natorily discharged Hintz on the same day It has also been found that D. D.
Bean, Jr, told McGinnis many months later that Gelinas had reported her as
being involved in the organization . These facts form a clear pattern of anti-
Union conduct on the part of Gelinas. The Trial Examiner is convinced that
Gelinas was actually motivated to discharge McGinnis by his antipathy toward
the Union, and used the incident reported to him by Chamberlain as a mere
pretext?'
It is therefore concluded and found that McGinnis was discharged by the
respondent on April 26, 1946, to discourage Union membership and activity among
its employees, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
..in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act's
"The weakness of the respondent ' s contention is further revealed by the testimony of
Vernon Bean , who stated , in effect, that McGinnis would have been laid off for no more
than a month if her case had not been filed as a charge by the Union.
18 In its answer, the respondent alleges that it was informed that she did not desire
reinstatement , by implication urging this as a reason for not re -employing her until Septem-
ber. The Trial Examiner finds no merit in this claim ; there is no evidence that either
the Board or the Union informed the respondent that the charge relating to McGinnis had
been withdrawn , furthermore , as noted above, Bean stated that she was not reinstated
sooner because her case had been included in the Union's charge.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III. above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,, and. commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain, ,unfair labor, prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action Which the Trial Examiner finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has discriminated against Phillip Hintz,
A. James Kohanski, and Victoria McGinnis. It will therefore be recommended
that the respondent offer to Phillip Hintz (Kohanski and McGinnis having already
been reinstated) immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
(equivalent position" without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and that it make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered,
by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equivalent to that which he or site would normally have earned
,as wages from the date of his or her discharge to the (late of offer of reinstate-
ment, in the case of Hintz, and to the (late of their reinstatement, in the cases
of Kohanski and McGinnis, less their net earnings i8 during said periods
In view -of the untaii labor practices found to have been committed by the
respondent, constituting violations of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, the
Trial Examiner is of the opinion and finds that there is danger of'the commis-
sion of other additional unfair labor practices, since the violations thus far
engaged in by the respondent indicate an intent to inteifeie generally with the
rights of the employees as guaranteed by the Act. It will therefore be recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering
,with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their right to self-organization"
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
'the Ineaning of Section 2 (5) of the act.
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Phillip
Hintz, A. James Kohanski, and Victoria McGinnis, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor, practices within the meaning of Section
S (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
"In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former of substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , San Juan,
Puei to Rico , Bianch, 65 N L R B 827.
Matter of Ci ossett Lumber Co . 8 N L R B 440 , 497-498
3s See May Department Stores, 326 U S 376
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 74 1
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within-the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5 By discharging Albert Coll and James Schofield the respondent has not
engaged in untaii labor pi actices within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Trial Examiner recommends that D: D. Bean & Sons Co., its-officers, agents,
successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Furniture Workers of America, CIO,
or any other labor organization of its employees by in any manner discriminat-
ing in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist the
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following athimative action which the Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Phillip Hintz immediate and full reinstatement to the position
which he occupied on April 24, 1946, prior to the respondent's discrimination
against him, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges ; and make Phillip Hintz, A. James
Kohanski and Victoria McGinnis whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner
provided herein in the section entitled "The remedy'";
(b) Post immediately at its plant in East Jaffrey, New Hampshire, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A " Copies of such notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, detaced, of covered by
any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachu-
setts) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this
Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith I
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to Albert Coll
and James Schofield.
809095-49-vol 79 48
,742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
,Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.3S of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington
25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing, setting forth
such 'exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as lie relies
upon, and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period,
file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof,upon
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
Proof of'service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.6:5. As further provided in said Sec-
tion 203 39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board,
iequest therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days
from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
C W WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 27; 1947.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL E MPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations 'Board, and in order to'effectuate the policies of the National Labor
-Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : 1
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Phillip Hintz
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE the employees named below for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
A. James Kohanski
Victoria McGinnis
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE such employees for any loss or diminution in their
seniority or other rights or privileges which they may have suffered as a
.result of the discrimination against them.
D. D. BEAN & SONS CO. 743
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such
labor organization.
D D. BEAN & SONS COMPANY
Employer.
By ---------------------------------
Dated--------------------------- (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.