Dearborn Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 891 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY and AMALGAMATED LOCAL
453, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. and LOCAL 73, GENERAL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. L.
Case No. 13-C- 943.Decided August 9, 1948
Mr. Gustaf B. Erickson , for the Board.
Meyers, Meyers , and Rothstein , by Mr . David B. Rothstein, of
Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Daniel D. Carmeli , by Mr. Lester Asher, of Chicago , Ill., for Local
73.
Mr. George J. Haddad, of Chicago, Ill., for the Respondent.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 21, 1947, Trial Examiner T. B. Smoot issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent, Dearborn Glass Company, had engaged, and was en-
gaging, in certain unfair labor practices,' and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port together with a supporting brief.
The Board 2 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and supporting brief,
and the entire record in the case, and for the reasons following will
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
The only allegations of the complaint sustained by the Trial Exam-
iner related to the Respondent's refusal to reemploy Mary Anderson
I Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act winch
the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had violated are continued in Section 8 (a)
( 1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor 'Management Relations Act of 1947.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has dele-
gated its powers - in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the under-
signed Board Members [ Houston, Reynolds , and Gray].
78 N. L R. B, No. 124.
891
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on July 29, 1946, after the termination of the strike at the Respond-
ent's plant,3 in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. The
Respondent contended that it had properly denied reemployment to
Anderson because (1) in furtherance of the strike, she had threat-
ened other employees of the Respondent with physical violence, and
had participated in mass picketing of the entrances to the plant, pre-
venting employees of Respondent from entering the plant on foot;
(2) she had spit on the Respondent's general manager; (3)• she had
openly advocated the use of force and violence as an instrument of
policy in collective bargaining and as a strike weapon; and (4) she
was an active member of the Communist Party.
On conflicting evidence the Trial Examiner found that Mary
Anderson had not advocated, threatened, or participated in any vio-
lence, and that, in denying her reemployment, the Respondent had not
been motivated by her alleged Communist affiliation but rather by the
leading part she had played in the affairs of the Union.
However, the Trial Examiner failed to make any specific findings
with respect to the alleged mass picketing and the extent, if any, of
Mary Anderson's participation therein. The record shows that at
least during the first 10 days of the strike 75 to 100 pickets were massed
at one of the entrances to the plant, and that many employees, intimi-
dated by this demonstration, were deterred from entering the plant.
It is also clear from the record that Mary Anderson was one of the
leaders of the pickets, that she personally participated in the mass
picketing described above, and that this was one of the reasons for
the Respondent's refusal to reemploy her after the conclusion of the
strike.
In Matter of The International Nickel Company, Inc.,4 we held, on
the basis of facts strikingly similar to those in the instant case, that
mass picketing which had the effect of barring supervisory and other
employees from the plant, even though not accompanied by overt acts
of violence, went beyond peaceful persuasion and constituted concerted
activity not protected by the Act, and that strikers who personally
participated in such mass picketing were not entitled to reinstate-
ment.5
3 As to the remaining allegations of the complaint , those relating to the refusal to reem-
ploy four strikers other than Mary Anderson , and the refusal to bargain with the Union
were either stricken from the complaint , or dismissed , on motion of counsel for the Board ;
Section xI of the complaint alleging certain coercive conduct of the Respondent was con-
sidered on the merits by the Trial Examiner, who recommended dismissal of that portion
of the complaint . Counsel for the Board has not excepted to this recommendation.
4 77 N L. R. B 286.
5 See , also, N. L R. B . v. Perfect Circle Company, 162 F. (2d) 566 (C. C. A. 7).
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 893
Accordingly, we cannot agree with the Trial Examiner in this case
that Mary Anderson was unlawfully discharged or denied reemploy-
ment, and we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.6
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 complaint herein against
Dearborn Glass Company, Chicago, Illinois , be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Gustaf B. Erickson, for the Board.
Meyers, Meyers, and Rothstein, by David B. Rothstein, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Union.
Daniel D Carmell, by Lester Asher, of Chicago, Ill, for Local 73.
George J Haddad, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Amalgamated Local 453, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement 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 Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint
dated April 9, 1947, against Dearborn Glass Company, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3) and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and Local 73, General Service
Employees International Union, A. F. L, herein called Local 73
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged that respond-
ent (1) since August 8, 1945, refused to bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union, and on September 9, 1946, while the Union was the legally certified
bargaining agent of respondent's employees, it negotiated and signed a contract
with Local 73 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and (2) that on or about July 28, 1946, it terminated the employment of
Carlos Officer, June Shaw, Walter Cain, Mary Anderson and Ruth Hale, because
of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and (3) from on
or about August 8, 1945, respondent urged and advised employees to join and
become members of labor organizations other than the Union ; took a poll of
the employees of the unit regarding their desire for collective bargaining agent
without notice to the Union ; urged, warned and threatened its employees not to
become or remain members of the Union and otherwise interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. Thereafter respondent filed an answer denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices and Local 73 filed an answer admitting entering into a
° In view of our decision herein , we need not pass on the other alleged reasons for Ander-
son's discharge cited by the Respondent
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining contract on September 9, 1946, with respondent but alleg-
ing said contract was valid and binding under the Act, and further alleging that
by reason of the provisions of the rider to the Appropriation Act, the Board was
barred from proceeding against this contract. Local 73 also filed a motion to
dismiss paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the complaint on the ground that the Board's
Appropriation Act of 1947 and the rider thereto barred the Board from proceeding
against the contract between the respondent and Local 73 because more, than
3 months had elapsed since the execution of the contract, and that the posting
requirements of the rider had been followed
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, from June 2 to June
18, inclusive, 1947, before the undersigned T. B. Smoot, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the opening of the hearing counsel
for the Board moved to amend the complaint by striking therefrom paragraphs
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which amendment was granted, and which in effect removed from
the complaint the allegations that the respondent had refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union in violation of Section 8 (5) and that its contract with Local
73 was invalid. The Board, respondent, the Union and Local 73 were represented
by counsel, all of whom participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
After the commencement of the hearing respondent asked leave to file an ainend-
ment to its answer. Leave being granted by the Trial Examiner, respondent filed
a First Amendment to Answer of Respondent setting forth further defenses re-
garding the termination of employment of the five persons heretofore named, and,
pursuant to a ruling of the Trial Examiner, it thereafter filed a bill of particulars
in support of its First Amendment to the Answer. During the course of the
hearing counsel for the Board moved to dismiss from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
complaint, the names of Carlos Officer, June Shaw, Walter Cain and Ruth Hale,
which motion was granted over the objection of the Union. The Union subse-
quently at various times moved to reinstate said names to the complaint, which
motions were denied.
At the conclusion of the hearing a motion made by counsel for the Board to
amend the complaint to conform to the proof was granted without objection and
respondent moved to dismiss paragraph 11 of the complaint. Upon this motion
ruling was reserved and it is now granted in conformity with paragraph 111-4
herein Oral argument was had by all the parties, and all parties were granted
leave to file briefs, proposed findings and conclusions with the undersigned.
Briefs were thereafter received from the respondent and the-Union.
Upon the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The respondent, Dearborn Glass Company, is an Illinois corporation with its
office and plant in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
automobile, radio and clock dials and mirrors. In the course and Conduct of its
business the respondent annually purchases raw materials valued in excess of
$250,000, of which approximately SO percent is received from points outside of
Illinois, and it annually manufactures products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of
which approximately 60 percent is shipped to points outside of Illinois.
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 895
Respondent conceded and the undersigned finds it to be engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Local 453, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , C. I. O. and Local, 73, General Service Employees
International Union, A. F. L., are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Chronology of events
On August 8, 1945, as a result of an election conducted by the Board , the Union
was certified by the Board as the collective bargaining agent in respect to rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment and other conditions of employment, of all
the employees of respondent in the unit found appropriate by the Board. There-
after on October 17, 1945, respondent entered into a written contract with the
Union. Under the provision of the contract allowing a reopening of the wage
provision therein, respondent and the Union in December 1945 commenced negoti-
ating on wages. The Union committee was composed of Walter Cain, president
of the Dearborn Glass unit of the Union , Mary Anderson , financial secretary,
Carlos Officer, recording secretary , and June Shaw , a steward , which persons
were the only ones consistently on the bargaining committee for the Union.
Meetings continued until April 22, 1946, when an impasse was reached and the
Union went on strike . During the strike various meetings were held between
respondent and the Union's officers looking toward ending the strike, and on
July 29, 1946, the Union instructed its members to return to work. Respondent
at this time refused reinstatement to Carlos Officer , Walter Cain , Ruth Hale,
June Shaw and Mary Anderson . All other strikers so far as this proceeding is
concerned were reinstated . On September 9, 1946, respondent entered into a
contract with Local 73 which contract became effective October 18, 1946.
2. Termination of employment of Mary Anderson
a. The violence cssve
Mary Anderson 's employment was terminated by respondent at the conclusion
of the strike on July 29 , 1946, along with the other officers of the local and Ruth
Hale, a steward of the unit. The Union at the time was told that these 5
persons were refused reinstatement because of their activities on the picket line.
Prior to June 29 the bargaining committee of the Union had been told that as
many as 10 employees might be refused reinstatement at the conclusion of the
strike for this reason . Finally the number was reduced to 7, and then to 5, at
which time James Machacek , financial secretary of the Union ( not an employee
of the respondent ) was told that 5 persons , Carlos Officer, Ruth Hale, Mary
Anderson , June Shaw , and Walter Cain would not be reinstated because (1)
they were responsible for what happened on the picket line , and (2 ) they did
some things which were personally obnoxious to Joseph A McCormick, secretary
and general manager of respondent . Machacek then went to see McCormick and
reached an agreement with him that the 2 of the 5 persons with the most sen-
iority, Walter Cain and Ruth Hale, would be reinstated , if the Union would agree
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the'non-reinstatement of Carlos Officer, June Shaw and Diary Anderson. Ap-
parently Machacek tentatively agreed to this as he thereupon conferred with
George A. Haddad, attorney for the respondent, who stated that he would prepare
formal documents closing the matter. Haddad prepared a document providing
(1) that the Union would terminate the strike, (2) that a certain wage schedule
was agreed upon, (3) that the respondent would not be required to lay off or
discharge any employee then working in order to give emplo3 nrent to a striker,
(4) that the Union agreed to recommend to the Board that charges theretofore
filed be dismissed and that respondent reserved the right of refusing to reinstate
the 5 named employees. However in another document entitled "Release" pre-
pared by Haddad, only June Shaw, Carlos Officer and Diary Anderson were named
and therein they "agreed not to make any claim or bring any charges against
said Dearborn Glass Company before the National Labor Relations Board under
the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act for or on account of said com-
pany's refusal to reinstate us as employees, and we hereby release said com-
pany from and by all claims against us." This document was to be signed by
those 3 employees. Neither document was ever signed, although they were sent
to the Union by Haddad, and the strike as stated heretofore was terminated by the
Union's advising all its members to return to work on July 29, and all 5 of the
persons named above were refused reemployment by respondent.
In its answer filed May 22, 1947, respondent stated that it terminated the em-
ployment of Carlos Officer, June Shaw, Mary Anderson, Walter Cain, and Ruth
Hale on or about July 29, 1946,
but not because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union,
but it did so because it concluded in the exercise of sound managerial judg-
ment that they were undesirable employees, said judgment having been based
on credible evidence then in possession to the following effect :
(a) The Union called a strike at respondent's plant, effective April 22,
1946, which strike continued until on or about July 29, 1946. During the
period of the strike and shortly prior thereto, each of the said five persons
threatened one or more of the respondent's employees with physical violence
if such employees exercised their right to work during the strike ;
(b) The strike in question was never supported by a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit. The Union planned to make its strike effective by seizing
possession of the entrances to respondent's plant and thereby prevent non-
strikers and plant personnel from entering said plant, and thereby deprive
the respondent of the use of its plant. This plan involved the use of mass
picketing, barring non-strikers and others from entering said plant: threats
of bodily harm and the blockading of the entrances to said plant. Pursuant
to such plan, the Union did on April 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, May 1, 2, 3, 20, 21,
22, 23 and 24, 1946, engage in mass picketing and blockading of the entrances
to respondent's plant, during which period it did by such conduct and by
intimidation and threats prevent respondent's employees and officials from
entering said plant on foot and it attempted to physically stop automobiles
from entering the plant, and during most of the period on said dates auto-
mobiles bearing employees and officials were able to cross through the picket-
ing blockade only after the police had intervened to compel the pickets to
open a passageway into the plant. Each of said five persons actively partici-
pated in the said conduct and in the execution of said Union plan;
s * * s x s s
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 897
(d) Each of said five persons openly advocated the principle- of the use
of force and violence as an instrument of policy in collective bargaining and
as a weapon in connection with strikes.
The testimony regarding these issues was in substance as follows :
1. Thelma Eldridge testified that the Friday before the strike Mary Anderson
said "better save some of [your check] because you are going to need it for a
doctor bill if you come through this strike We are striking." Eldridge an-
swered "I am not afraid."
2. Richard Packard testified that Mary Anderson never engaged in any violence
as far as he knew but that she and June Shaw told him to stop cars from coming
into the plant. However, Packard, who admittedly tried to stop cars from going
through the picket line by forcibly laying hands on them and was twice arrested
for thus, testified that he acted in this manner because he wished to do so.
Respondent knew of his actions but he was reinstated without comment or
reprimand.
3 Officer Emmett McMorrow of the Chicago police force testified that he heard
Mary Anderson and Ruth Hale say to two employees, "If you attempt to go to
work, I w ill break your head open " However, he further testified that he did not
arrest her for this and he gave no reason for not arresting her.
4. Gus Jones, an employee, said that all the Union leaders told him to keep
cars from coining through the picket line but he did not name Mary Anderson as
one of the leaders until he was asked specifically about her and he thereupon
gave the following equivocal'reply, "Well, she told us to stop them too, she didn't
ever do much talking. She was always outside."
5 Officei John Biker tcstihed that on several occasions he heard Mary Ander-
son with June Shaw in reference to carloads of workers going through the picket
line say : "Don't let them in, keep that picket line solid
6 Foreman Edward Rodzen testified he heard Mary Anderson threaten to
"get" a passenger Rodzen carried to work
'7. Marie Kucharzyk testified while riding into work during the strike she heard
Mary Anderson say "I will get you, Marie "
8. Vernon Gilstrap, respondent's superintendent, testified that he heard all of
the discharged union leaders, except Carlos Officer, every clay, yell "Stop [the
cars] tip the next one over."
This is the testimony linking Mary Anderson with threatened violence. There
is no testimony linking her with any actual violence. On the other band is the
following testimony :
1. It was stipulated that 50 witnesses if called by respondent would testify as
William Burns testified, i e, that several times 'during the strike as he drove a
car through the picket line he saw pickets massing up against the car trying to
stop it and heard violent fist knocks on the windows and felt his car rock ; that
there were 75 or 100 pickets massing around who could have stopped him if they
had really wanted to ; that he heard no particular name-calling by the pickets ;
that he saw Mary Anderson as one of the pickets who were not near his car; that
he never lost any time during the strike because of the pickets' actions.
2 George Barnes, Captain of Police of the City of Chicago and in charge of the
Police Labor detail, testified before the Superior Court of Cook County and his
testimony was introduced by stipulation in this hearing. His testimony was that
when an automobile would approach the picket line the policemen would yell
"heads up. open up," and "some of the pickets would give cat calls, some of them
would press forward and we [police] would have to stop the car to move thew
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
back. Some of them would move out a little bit and we would motion the car in
at that time"; that men were arrested for laying hands on a car, at least three
persons were arrested for being on the wrong "half of the sidewalk," that five
men were.arrested for refusing to open up the picket line when he asked them to,
that he never knew of any car windows broken or any property damage He
repeatedly testified that the picket line was orderly.
3. Officer Joseph Wroblewski of the Chicago police force testified that he was on
duty at the strike for a full month and never in any way testified regarding
Anderson.
4. Elnora Nichols called by respondent testified that she was given instructions
by a union officer to use no bad language while on the picket line but merely to
carry a picket sign. However Edward Rodzen, a foreman, testified Nichols par-
ticipated in shoving his car while lie was driving through the picket line and hit
his car with her umbrella causing it to be scratched. He further testified that
another employee who worked directly under him, Mark Davis, threw a handful
of gravel hitting his car windshield directly in front of his face and that neverthe-
less both Nichols and Davis were reinstated by respondent without comment or
reprimand.
5. June Shaw testified that many times at union meetings she and the other
officers of the Union told the members "that if any cars would go through
[the picket line] that we would allow them to go through unmolested, that there
was to be no violence, that the only way we could hope to win the strike would be
to not have any violence on the picket line at all " She further testified, "I said
that myself at meetings, that if we did have any violence on the picket line,
regardless of whether it was individual or groups, that the Company would get
an injunction against us, and with an injunction our strike would be lost, and
that we would not have any violence from any member of the union, that action
would be taken againsT any member of the union causing violence on the picket
line."
6 Carlos Officer testified that the outside officers of Local 453 stressed at strike
strategy committee meetings that force and violence should not be used in con-
ducting the strike and that he passed on these instructions to the pickets.
7. Carlos Officer was not present ou the picket line throughout the strike yet he
was ostensibly discharged for the same reasons as were the other four union
-officers. ^
8. All five of the union officers who were discharged by respondent denied par-
-ticipating in any violence and Mary Anderson specifically testified that she never
,threatened anyone with physical violence during the strike nor did she at any
time advocate the use of violence during the strike. At one time during the strike
.she was arrested for not moving when a policeman requested her to and she was
taken to the police station, and after the strike was over she was tried and found
not guilty. She testified that she was a member of the strike strategy committee,
and that it was decided by this committee that there should be no violence, but
.that everyone should picket and picket all day, that she and others tried to talk
-people into not going through the picket line but if anyone insisted they were
allowed to go through, and that cars full of employees went through the picket line
every day, that any employee who wanted to go through the picket line did go
through, that she never called anyone a scab or any other name.
It is clear that Mary Anderson participated in no violence while employees who
did were reinstated. Only two witnesses, Gus Jones and Richard Packard, testi-
fied that she in any way advocated violence. Jones' testimony was too equivocal
and incollereut to understand and a finding that Anderson advocated violence
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 899
could not be based upon it. As to Packard, if any one person were shown to be a
leader in participating in violence it was he, and he frankly admitted that he par-
ticipated in violence because he desired to do so. His evidence that Anderson
advised him to stop cars is not credible in view of the testimony of over 60 wit-
nesses, none of whom heard her advocate, or saw her participate in, violence.
Anderson allegedly threatened tour persons. Eldridge, an employee called by
respondent, testified that Anderson prior to the strike told her "better save some
of [your check] because you are going to need it for a doctor bill if you come
through this strike. We are striking." Eldridge answered, "I am not afraid"
and further testified she had never discussed union matters with Anderson and
had not expressed herself as being against the strike or against unions. There is
no evidence whether Eldridge worked during the strike or went on strike. In view
of all Eldridge's testimony the bald statement above is too equivocal to be the basis
of a finding that it is a threat of bodily harm if Eldridge failed to strike as
respondent apparently contends. Officer McMorrow testified that Anderson and
Hale threatened two employees in his presence but that he did not arrest them.
His testimony is not credible. The other two threats were heard in each instance
by an occupant of a car going into work through the pickets and were to the effect
that Anderson would "get" someone. Rodzen on direct examination could not
identify the person making the threat but on cross-examination attributed it to
Anderson. His statements on direct and cross-examination are considerably
divergent and in view of all his testimony, the noise and incidents surrounding his
entry in the plant, this testimony regarding Anderson is not credible, while Gil-
strap's test.niony ( n thin issue, and as a whole, as shown later is not credible.
This leaves only the statement Anderson made to Kucharzyk, "I will get you,
Marie," which from the rest of Kucharzyk's testimony is shown not to have been
taken seriously and to have had no effect' It has long been held that strikers
participating in violence are not entitled to reinstatement, N L. R B v. Fansteel
Corp, 306 U. S. 240, and as stated by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
Wilson d Co. v. N. L. R. B., 120 F. (2d) 913, respondent has "the right and respon-
sibility of determining which of the strikers had engaged in unlawful conduct,"
but as that Court further said, "In making such determination [respondent]
would have acted at its own hazard and could not, under the Act, have discrim-
inated against a striker under the guise that lie engaged in unlawful conduct."
(Emphasis added ) This latter principle has been further emphasized by the
Board in Hatter of Mid-Continent Peti oleuin Corporation, 54 N L. R. B. 912,
wherein it said, "Once it is pleaded that the discharge was made for unlawful
conduct inseparably connected with the strike, the burden was on the respondent
to show that all the striking employees discharged therefor had, in fact, been
guilty of unlawful conduct," (quoted with approval in Matter of the Perfect Circle
Company, 70 N L R B 526, reversed on other grounds 7th C. C A. June 18, 1947).
It is the finding of the undersigned based on the preponderance of credible testi-
mony that Anderson's employment was not terminated for the reasons given in
respondent's original answer as set forth above.
b. Andes son and McCormick
Among the reasons given by respondent in its answer for terminating the
employment of Mary Anderson was the following: "9 (c) The said Mary
1 In Wilson it Co v N L R B, 120 F (2d) 913, the 7th C C A speaking of alleged
threats made to two union members by respondent's supervisors, said "that the statements
had no effect is evidenced by the fact that both Daniels and Smith remained on strike "
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anderson did on or about April 24, 1946', spit on the respondent's general iuan-
ager as he left the plant in an automobile under police protection'"
Respondent's secretary and general manager, Joseph McCormick, testified
that as he was driving away from the plant one clay during the strike Anderson
spit on him. Mary Anderson unequivocally denied the occurrence and further
testified that until taking the witness stand in this hearing she had never even
been accused of such an incident. This accusation was not mu'ntmoned in any
of the conferences relating to the five discharged union leaders either to them
or to Machacek and Sven Anderson, who had various meetings with respondent's
officials about the said five employees. Gilstiap, respondent's superintendent,
who handles its labor matters, testified that he, with Haddad and McCormick,
determined which persons should not be reinstated after the strike and testi-
fied in detail as to the reason for not reinstating Anderson and the others, without
mentioning the alleged spitting Haddad also testified without mentioning this
matter. McCormick however testified that it was "his reason" for not wanting
Anderson reinstated but does not know whether the others knew of it or not.
In view of all the evidence and McCormick's evasive and contradictory testimony,
contrasted with Anderson's straightforward demeanor, McCormick's testimony
on this point is not credited and Anderson's denial is credited. The undersigned
finds that respondent did not terminate Anderson's employment for the reason
given in paragraph 9 (c) of its answer as set forth above.
c The Conmoo,sin 'issue
The Communism issue was not brought into the case until after the hearing
had commenced when Mary Anderson was on the witness stand, at which time
respondent asked and obtained leave to file and (lid file a first amendment to the
answer, which reads as follows:
(9) In reaching its decision not to reinstate the five persons mentioned
above, it considered that said five persons were probably active members of
the Communist Party and that the acts charged against the said five persons
in paragraph 9 of the answer were motivated by their adherence to the doc-
trines of said party. Subsequent thereto, some time about the month of
October, 1946, it was informed by a special representative of an agency of
the United States government that each of said persons were active mem-
bers of the Communist Party Subsequent to the filing of its original answer
herein, it interviewed a number of persons, some of whom informed respon-
dent that each of the five persons were members of the Communist Party and
some of whom informed respondent that they had been solicited to join
the Communist Party by Mary Anderson Asa result thereof, this respond-
ent does not believe that in the exercise of sound business judgment, it
can reinstate any of said five persons.
There was no showing that this issue was ever raised in discussions with the
Union theretofore, nor were Mary Anderson or the other officers of the Union ever
confronted with the fact that they were alleged to be Communists After the
filing of the first amendment to the answer, Vernon Gilstrap. respondent's super-
intendent, testified that the decision not to reinstate the five persons was made
prior to July 29, 1946, by McCormick, Haddad and himself, that among the ele-
ments entering into their decision were the following: (1) an officer of the
Company, Williams, had been advised by a newspaper reporter that' Local 453
of the Union was "infested with Communists"; (2) that Communist literature
had been found in the plant in February 1946, and when it was called to the
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 901
attention of the union grievance committee, Mary Anderson had said that she
brought it into the plant and that she "was free to read anything she wanted" ;
(3) that at this same meeting with the grievance committee, Mary Anderson
said that "this country would be better off if it was run like Russia" ; (4) that
during the strike in June 1946 Richard Packard told Gilstrap that June Shaw and
Maiy Anderson had tried to get him to join the Communist party and attend
meetings. Gilstrap further testified that to him the five employees refused rein-
statement were leaders of a communistic plan prior to the strike and that happen-
ings during the strike and newspaper articles that Local 453 was communistic,
helped to confirm this opinion ; that he, long a member of labor organizations
prior to his employment by respondent, was able to "smell" these persons as Com-
munists, and that when the decision had been made prior to June 29 to refuse re-
instatement to only three persons instead of five, that the decision was to take
back Ruth Hale and Walter Cain of the five because they had the most seniority
despite his belief that they were Communists, but nevertheless he further testi-
fied that in fact in February 1946 lie believed that Carlos Officer, Mary Anderson,
Walter Cain, Ruth Hale, and June Shaw were membeis of the Communist party,
but that he did not do anything about it and despite being told by Williams that
the Union was "infested by communists" he never investigated any employees.
As to discharging the five union leaders for being Communists he testified as
follows on examination by the Board attorney :
Q Now, I want you to tell me when for the first time did it occur to you, and
if you know, to Mr. Haddad, to Mr. Paulick, [owner of respondent] and to Mr.
McCormick, that you were going to fire any one of these five people because
of communist activities?
A. Well, I would say as far as them being communists we didn't know
that they were at that time, but I assumed that they were, and as I said
before, from certain things they had done, the pattern they laid down
I thought they were. I was in labor myself for thirteen years, A. F of L.
man, and in all the shops I worked in I never seen the disruption of a
company like that was disrupted by those individuals in there, and there-
foi e it led me to believe in the newspaper clippings I had read and the
statements made, and made at one of the meetings I attended, it left me
no alternative to believe in my mind but that they were communists.
Q Now, will you please answer my question?
A. Well, I can say that at no time were they definitely picked for being
communists, if you want it that way, or assuming that they were communists.
There was nothing to do at that point at that time for discharging on
account of communism. It was a definite pattern of violence, it helps more
or less formulate your mind.
Q. (By Mr. Erickson.) So if the issue of communism is an issue in this
proceeding, it is brought forward for the purpose of a question concerning
the reinstatement of these people, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q And it had nothing to do with their firing?
A. I don't quite follow you.
Q They were not fired because they were communists, were they?
A. No, sir.
Thereafter when examined by the attorney for respondent, Gilstrap testified as
follows :
795767-49--v of 7S-58
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Was the subject of communism discussed at a conference between you
and Mr. McCormick and myself in the early part of June, 1946?
A. It was.
Q. And when you said they were not fired because they were communists, do
you mean that that did not enter into the consideration of your decision?
A. I don't know whether they were communists. I thought they were
but insofar as, finding at that particular time, it was the acts of violence
they had done and of course back in my mind I believed they were com-
munists, that just helped formulate the plant (sic)
Q. It helped formulate what plant? (sic)
A. The idea I had in mind, that they weren't any good, the agitation and
the disruption of work that they brought before the strike and the plan they
had on the picket line of violence, naturally my conclusion was they were
communists and on the conclusion of violence, we, or I didn't want the five
back in the plant.
McCormick, who with Haddad and Gilstrap made the decision not to reemploy
the five leaders, was called as a witness for respondent and said nothing in regard
to the reasons for not reinstating the five persons except to testify that Ander-
son spit on him. He testified on Communism as far as employment is concerned
as follows :
Q (By Mr Haddad ) If it carne to your attention at this time that there
was a Communist in i-our (mnplo} what Mould be your polio' on that if any?
A. Well, that would be weighed
Q. And what circumstances would you take into consideration in weigh-
ing that?
A. Well, I would certainly not keep the man employed if he was attempt-
ing to make his principles known to somebody else.
Q What other factors would you weigh if any?
A. Well, as I said, if he was trying to take his doctrine and force it on
somebody else or was proselitizing or was violent, I wouldn't want to keep
him.
Q. What would you do ; you said you wouldn't want to keep him What
would you do in that case?
A Fire him.
He further testified that during the 20 years he was connected with the plant
not being a Communist had never been a condition of eniplol ment and further
as to the non-reinstatement of the five persons, that he had been willing on July
27, 1946, to make a deal with Machacek to the effect that Walter Cain and Ruth
Hale could be reinstated provided the Union and the remaining three employees
agreed that no charges would be brought before the Board. There was nothing
said about Communism during these conferences. Haddad, who also testified
on behalf of the respondent, said nothing about the Communism issue There
was no testimony as to why this issue was so belatedly raised Without Gil-
strap's testimony respondents' allegation that Mary Anderson and the other four
union leaders were discharged, among other reasons, because they were Com-
munists, would fall for want of proof Gil strap was evasive and shifty in answer-
ing questions and could not explain why lie did nothing regarding Anderson
and the others from February to July 29, 1946, if at all times therein lie believed
they were Communists as lie testified, nor why if lie believed Williams' assertion
that the Union was "infested with Communists" lie questioned no one about it
until June 1947, during the hearing.
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 903
Gilstrap further testified that after terminating the employment of Mary An-
derson and the other Union leaders, namely, in October 1946, proof that the five
employees were Communist party members had been furnished him by William
C. Carroll, Jr., then a Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent. Gilstrap said Car-
roll showed him a list of 25 names asking him if he knew of any of the persons
on the list; that Gilstrap knew five of the persons on the list, namely: June Shaw,
Carlos-Officer, Ruth Hale and Mary Anderson, and another union officer who
never returned to respondent's employ ; that Carroll then stated that these five
persons were members of the Communist party. Gilstrap testified that he asked
Carroll if he knew anything about Walter Cain whose name was not on the list,
and that Carroll said lie knew nothing of him; that a few days later Carroll
telephoned Gilstrap and said that Walter Cain was a "known Communist "
William C. Carroll, Jr., was subpenaed on request of the Union and testified
that he was no longer with the Federal Bureau of Investigation but had been
in October 1945, and that he then had had an interview with Gilstrap. When
asked to testify as to the conversation with Gilstrap, Carroll stated that under
Department of Justice Order 3229 he was not allowed to discuss anything he
(lid or said in connection with his official duties while with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. However, it was brought out that he could testify as to anything
lie did not do or did not say during that employment, and he then testified that
lie had not advised Gilstrap that Carlos Officer, June Shaw, Ruth Hale, and
Mary Anderson were members of the Communist party, that lie did not advise
Gilstrap that Shaw, Officer, Hale and Anderson were active Communists, that
lie did not advise Gilstrap that anybody in his employ was an active Communist,
that he had never advised Gilstrap that these persons were Communists, that lie
,did not submit a list or exhibit a list of names including the names of these
former employees of respondent to Gilstrap, that he did not advise Gilstrap that
Carlos Officer, June Shaw, Walter Cain, and Mary Anderson were subversive
in any manner or that they should not be reinstated to respondent's employ, that
lie did not have a later telephone conversation with Gilstrap after the conference
or at any time advising him that Walter Cain was a Communist, or that Walter
Cain was in any manner subversive.
Carroll's testimony was given in a straightforward and convincing manner
throughout, while Gilstrap, as stated, was evasive and contradictory. In view of
Carroll's forthright testimony in regard to his meeting with Gilstrap it is patent
that Gilstrap's testimony regarding that meeting and the matter set forth in the
first amendment to the answer of respondent, regarding that meeting which was
signed and verified by Gilstrap were completely false. It is not possible to in
any way square the testimony of these two men. It is impossible for the under-
signed to believe other than that Gilstrap completely fabricated his testimony in
regard to his interview with Carroll, in the belief that an FBI agent could not
testify.' In view of the finding that this testimony was outright fabrication, a
framed defense to an unfair labor practice charge, all of Gilstrap's testimony is
suspect. In view of all the evidence, including that Gilstrap claimed that in
February 1946 he knew these five persons were Communists, and that he did
nothing about it until the strike ended, his lack of interest in investigating his
employees when Williams supposedly told him the Union was "infested with
Communists," his complete fabrication of the interview with the FBI agent, and
that respondent never raised the issue of Communism as a reason for discharge
until June 1947, and McCormick's testimony that Communism was not a reason
2 Counsel for respondent testified that FBI agents or former agents could not testify
-%Nithout the permission of the Attorney General.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for discharge, it is found by the undersigned that Mary Anderson was not dis-
charged because of a belief that she was a Communist, but that this issue was
raised only as a defense herein after the termination of her employment The
stated reasons for the discharge of Mary Anderson were not supported by
credible proof while her leadership in and activity on behalf of the Union were
of course known to respondent, and the undersigned finds that the termination
of Mary Anderson's employment on July 29, 1946, was not caused for the reasons
alleged by respondent but was based upon the leading part which she played in
the Union affairs and was in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. Respondent's contention that Anderson should not be reinstated
Respondent contended that even if Mary Anderson were found to have been
discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act, it should not be required to
reinstate her "in view of her obvious active efforts to promote the interests of the
Communist party, since [the respondent] would not under present circumstances
employ active Communist leaders " Testimony was offered to show that since
Anderson's dischai ge, information came to respondent about her communist
activities. In addition to that testified to by Gilstrap about the interview with
William C. Carroll, Jr., which was shown to be false, respondent brought forward
testimony that in June 1947 during this hearing seien employees told respondent
about Communist activities of Mary Anderson. Four of these witnesses and their
testimony was, in substance, as follows: (1) Emmett Radney testified that he
attended a Communist meeting, that Mary Anderson was present, that she asked
him to join the Communist party and lie did so: (2) Raven Clark testified that lie
attended a meeting at which a man (not an employee) "apoke something about
Communists" that "he just said it was a good thing for the working class" ; that
at the same meeting Mary Anderson said, "You all suit yourselves about that" and
"Well, it seems like it is a good thing " He further testified that he "thought
Mary Anderson" passed out some literature which was "something about Com-
munists and the working class of people"; (3) Gus Jones testified that he was at
the home of Menzo Brazier, with Mary Anderson, June Shaw, and Carlos Officer
also present, and that "Well when I came in, so they was all sitting there, so when
they asked me if I would join, and I says, `Joni what?' she [Mary Anderson] said,
'We are trying to get up a party, the Communist party' She said, `Would you
mind joining?' I said, 'No, I will see about that.' She said, `Okay, well, you don't
have to hurry yourself' She said, `We give you time to think over it' "; (4) James
Crump testified that he had conversation with June Shaw and Mary Anderson in
a restaurant during the strike and that "they was telling about joining the Com-
munist party, what it was doing for them in strikes in different parts of the
country."
The other three witnesses called by respondent on this issue did not suppoit
respondent's claim that they disclosed communistic activities on Anderson's part
to respondent. (1) Menzo Brazier testified that June Shaw asked him to attend
a Communist meeting and gave him some literature but that Mary Anderson never
talked to him about "that stuff." He failed to testify about a meeting of the
Communist party supposedly held at his house as Gus Jones testified supra; (2)
Elnora Nichols testified in a most incoherent manner in regard to the Communist
party and June Shaw but said nothing about Anderson ; (3) Cleveland Merill testi-
fied he was given a card to sign ; that he attended a meeting which he was told
was a Communist meeting ; that as to the persons present he said regarding
Anderson, "I think maybe Anderson [was present], I am not sure." Mary
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 905
Anderson testified that she was not a member of the Communist party, that she
never solicited employees to join the Communist party nor slid she ever attend
Meetings of the Communist party.
Respondent could choose to believe the four employees who testified in regard
to the active or passive interest on the part of Anderson in the Communist party
and if the employment policy of respondent had been shown to be against the
employment of or retention of persons who "promoted the interests of the Com-
munist Party" the contention that respondent should not be required to reinstate
Anderson would have more weight. But just the contrary has been shown. First,
Gilstrap who had authority to hire and fire claimed he "knew" in February 1946
that Anderson and the other four union leaders were Communists, and that
nothing was done about it. Second, Gilstrap was advised that the Union was
"infested with Communists" but he did nothing to find out if his employees were
,Communists. Third, McCormick testified that if lie found an employee was a
Communist he would "weigh" it, that it had never been a condition of employ-
ment that a person not be a Communist. Fourth, respondent never questioned
any employee or prospective employee about membership in the Communist party
until after this hearing commenced It seems clear that the reinstatement of
Anderson would not violate any employment policy of respondent unless it has
been recently formulated without the knowledge of any employees who testified a
Furthermore, Gilstrap by completely fabricating, and thus deliberately framing,
a defense in this case, based upon the visit of an FBI agent with him, destroys
the good faith ordinarily imported to defenses and contentions raised in these
hearings.
For all the above reasons respondent's contention that the undersigned should
not recommend that Anderson be reinstated is held to be without merit.
4. Section XI of the complaint
Section XI of the complaint alleges that respondent on or about August 8, 1945,
and at all times thereafter encouraged, urged and advised the employees in the
-unit to join and assist and become members of labor organizations other than the
Union ; took a poll of the employees of the unit without regard to their desire
for a collective bargaining agent without notice to the Union, urged, warned
and threatened its employees not to become or remain members of the Union;
and otherwise interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 0
The only testimony regarding this paragraph of the complaint related to mat-
ters occurring between August 8, 1945, when the Union was certified, and October
17, 1945, when it entered into a contract with respondent, and consisted of facts
showing that an abortive attempt to form an independent union was made.
There was also testimony that for 2 weeks of this period respondent was picketed
by the Union and that after the signing of the contract, respondent's general man-
ager introduced an official of the Union to all of his employees assembled in the
plant, and that the Union official spoke to the employees about the contract that
had been signed In view of all the testimony, it is found that by the occurrences
between August 8, 1945, and October 17, 1945, respondent did not interfere with,
restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
3 Respondent has the right to discharge an employee for any reason other than union
statement foreclose respondent from formulating and enforcing any rule or employment
policy in regard to Communists.
activities , and Anderson's reinstatement would not alter this right. Nor would her rein-
906 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 designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
By discharging Mary Anderson because of leadership in and activities on behalf
of the Union, the respondent utilized the most effective form of intimidation pos-
sible. Although the evidence adduced shows that no statements were made in
direct violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, after the Union signed the contract
with the respondent on October 17, 1945, the illegal conduct shown by the dis-
charge of an outstanding union leader coupled with a complete fabrication of tes-
timony by the superintendent of respondent for the purpose of bolstering its
defense in this hearing, disclose a purpose to defeat self-organization and its ob-
jects among the respondent's employees and convinces the undersigned that the
unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the unfair labor practices
proscribed, and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from respondent's conduct herein set forth (N. L. R B. v. Express Publishing
Company, 312 U. S 426; and May Department Stoi es v. N. L R B. 326 U S. 376).
In order therefore to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the purposes
of the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed the employees
by Section 7 of the Act
It will also be recommended that the respondent offer immediate and full rein-
statement to Mary Anderson to her former or substantially equivalent position 4
and that the respondent make Mary Anderson whole for any loss incurred because
of the respondent's discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she would have earned as wages from July 29, 1946,
the date of the termination of her employment, to the date of respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less her net earnings 5 during said period
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Amalgamated Local 453, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, C I. 0., and Local 73, General Service Employees
4In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible, but if such position is ro longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent
position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank,: of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N L R B 827.
5 Matter of Ci ossett Lumber Co , 8 N L. R B 440, 497-498.
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 907
International Union, A F. L., are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mary
Anderson, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Local 453,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0, respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Dearborn Glass Company, Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Local 453, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement 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
and tenure of employment, or any term and condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist
Amalgamated Local 453, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, C I. 0, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Mary Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Mary Anderson for any loss of pay she may have suffered by
reason of respondent's discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum
of money equal to the amount which she would normally have earned as wages
during the period from July 29, 1946, the date of the termination of her employ-
ment, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings
during such period ;
(c) Post in its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the re-
spondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon the
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material;
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) File with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) clays from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report,
what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that paragraph 11 of the complaint be dismissed.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to
take action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1046, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washing-
ton 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in witting setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof,
and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an
original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Im-
-mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party
or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of
the other parties and shall file a copy 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 65 As further provided in said Section 203.39,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
(late of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
T B. SirOOT,
Trial Ewcminer.
Dated August 21, 1947:
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Mary Anderson
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in AMALGAMATED LOCAL 453, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT W ORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I 0., or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment, except insofar as said conduct is protected by the
proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act.
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY 909 '
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 the above named, or any 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.
DEARBORN GLASS COMPANY,
Employer.
By -----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.