ESB, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 778 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Exide Alkaline Battery Division of ESB , Inc. and
International Union of Electrical, Radio, and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 11-CA-3611
and 11-RC-2707
June 30, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On April 22, 1969, Trial Examiner Stanley
Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found, in Case II-RC-2707 that the
Respondent interfered with a Board election held on
May 24, 1968, and recommended that the election
be set aside and that a new one be directed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.'
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent interpreted its no-solicitation rule, as
modified by the January 3, 1967, notice, in a
manner that unlawfully restricted solicitation. The
record indicates that the Respondent interpreted the
rule to allow solicitation during times when the
employees were on scheduled nonwork time such as
coffee and lunch breaks, but not when they were on
other nonwork time. In this connection, we note
that Richardson was discharged for engaging in
union solicitation during alleged working time
although the activity occurred when Richardson and
the employee he spoke to were both standing in line
at the timeclock waiting to punch out for the day.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that for
the reasons stated by him, the no-solicitation rule
posted by the Respondent on April 24, 1968,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and therefore interfered with
the employee's free choice in the election held on
'In view of the fact that , contrary to the Trial Examiner's statements,
the Respondent admitted the allegation of the complaint that Brinkley,
McMillan , and Simmons are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, we
find that these individuals are supervisors.
May 24, 1968; however, in addition, we find that
because the rule is presumptively invalid on its face,
its continued existence constituted an interference
with the election.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Exide Alkaline Battery Division of
ESB, Inc., Sumter, South Carolina, its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order as herein modified.
1. Delete subparagraph 1(d) and substitute the
following:
"(b) Promulgating, maintaining , or enforcing
no-solicitation rules prohibiting employees during
nonworking time from soliciting for the Union on
Respondent's property."
2. Delete the fifth indented paragraph of the
notice and substitute the following:
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce
no-solicitation rules prohibiting solicitation on
behalf of the Union during nonworking time on
our property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in
Case 11-RC-2707 on May 24, 1968, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that the case be remanded
to the Regional Director for Region 11 for the
purpose of conducting a new election at such time as
he deems the circumstances permit the free choice of
a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Second Election' omitted from
publication.]
'Southern Electronics Co, Inc, 175 NLRB No I 1
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N.L R.B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U.S. 759 . Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election elibigility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region I I within 7
days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the
Regional Director . The Regional Director shall make the list available to
all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner : Based upon a charge
filed on May 3, 1968, by International Union of Electrical
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, the complaint in Case
11-CA-3611 was issued July 23, 1968. Said complaint as
177 NLRB No. 99
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY DIV. OF ESB, INC.
amended,' alleges that Exide Alkaline Battery Division of
ESB, Inc., variously referred to herein as the Company,
the Respondent, or the Employer, engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent, by its answer, denies that it committed the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. By order
dated October 21, 1968, Case lI-RC-2707 was
consolidated with Case 11-CA-3611 for a hearing "to
resolve the issues raised as to the validity of the
Employer's solicitation rule as related to Objection I."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Sumter,
South Carolina, on December 2, 3, and 4, 1968, before
me. Briefs were received from the General Counsel and
Respondent within the time designated therefor.
Upon the entire record' in this proceeding and upon
observation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a Delaware corporation with a plant
at Sumter, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the
business of manufacturing batteries.' During the 12
months' preceding the issuance of the complaint, which is
a representative period, the Company received at its
Sumter, South Carolina, plant raw materials valued in
excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of South
Carolina. During the same period of time, the Company
manufactured, sold, and shipped from its said plant
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points
outside the State of South Carolina.
As is admitted by the Company, it is, and has been at
all times material herein , an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by the Company, the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the complaint, as
amended, that on March 27, 1968, Respondent discharged
Carl R. Turner, Clarence P. Tallent, James A. McKnight,
David L. Richardson, and Charles A. Weatherly because
of their union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.' The Respondent admits that it discharged the
aforesaid employees, but denies that such action was
violative of the Act, asserting that their discharges were
for engaging in solicitation on behalf of the Union in
violation of the Company's no-solicitation rule. It is
further alleged in the complaint that Respondent, between
the dates of March 6 and March 26, 1968, engaged in
various acts which were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Respondent denies that it engaged in the conduct
alleged. It is also alleged in the complaint that "since on
'The complaint was amended by changing the State in which Respondent
was alleged to have been incorporated to the State of Delaware, and by
deleting the name of William Weatherford from paragraph 8
'L. 3, p 261 of the transcript is corrected to substitute the words "I am"
for the words "you are " This correction not only is in conformity with the
Trial Examiner 's recollection of what was stated , but also is dictated by
the context in which the words appear
'Said plant at Sumter, South Carolina , is the only one of the Company's
plants which is involved in this proceeding
779
or about November 3, 1967," Respondent has maintained
and enforced a rule with respect to distribution of
literature and solicitation which is violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. It is also alleged that on April 24
Respondent posted a notice on its bulletin boards
containing a no-solicitation rule which is violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent denies that it
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by virtue of its rules.
The Union started its organizational campaign in the
Respondent's plant in the latter part of February, 1968.
Sometime prior to March 13, 1968, the Respondent
learned of the Union's organizational attempt and on
March 13, the following letter to employees was posted on
bulletin boards in the plant:
In the past few days, a number of employees have
asked about the Company's position on unions. Our
position has not changed.
This Company does not want a union in this plant.
We don't think any outsiders, such as a union organizer
from Georgia, have anything worthwhile or constructive
to offer. The only thints the union sells are confusion,
turmoil and trouble-and they charge a price for it. This
is why the Company will resist the union with every legal
means available.
The union may ask you to sign one of their cards
and say it is "just to get an election" They may also
say that if you sign a card it will be kept "secret." This
is highly misleading If the union can get enough cards
signed, they don't have to ask for an election. It is
common practice nowadays for unions to give the cards
to the Company and ask the Company to look at the
signatures. Then they say no election is necessary,
because the cards say you have already "designated"
the union as your "bargaining representative."
Don't let the union mislead you. If you sign a union
card, you could be giving up your right to a secret
ballot election.
It should be noted that the aforesaid letter was received
in evidence with the representation from General Counsel
that it was not offered as proof of an independent
violation of the Act, but merely as proof of the
Respondent's antiunion animus. It is found that this letter,
in addition to other conduct of the Respondent found
hereinbelow, amply supports the conclusion that
Respondent did entertain a strong antiunion animus.
During a period of approximately an hour toward the
end of the day shift on March 27, 1968,5 the five
above-mentioned employees were discharged by Calvin
Cross, Respondent's manager of employee relations. In
order to determine whether or not said discharges, or any
of them, were discriminatorily motivated, it is necessary
to consider them in light of the entire record, i.e., in light
of the circumstances leading up to the discharges and in
context with each other.
Following is an evaluation of the testimony of each of
the discharged employees with respect to events preceding
his discharge and other testimony relative to said events.
Carl R. Turner
At the time of his discharge, Turner had been employed
by Respondent at the Sumter plant for 2-1/2 years. He
'As indicated above, this paragraph was amended to delete therefrom the
allegation that one William Weatherford was also discriminatorily
discharged . Consequently , evidence in the record relating to his discharge
will be disregarded
'It should be noted that the Sumter plant commenced operations in late
summer of 1965, and , therefore , at the time of the aforesaid discharges it
had been operating approximately 2 years and 8 months.
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was classified as a leadman and set up man in
"department 31," the screw machine department, where
he had worked approximately a year and a half. In the,
latter part of February 1968, he, along with other
employees, attended a meeting at the home of then
employee Roger Shelton, at which they discussed the
matter of having a union represent them. Subsequently, he
attended some 10 meetings at the union hall, signed a
union authorization card, and obtained signed union
authorization cards from other employees.
Turner testified that on the afternoon of March 13, on
returning from his break, he saw the above-quoted March
13 letter on the bulletin board and that he "kind of
shook" his head "like I disagreed with it." He further
testified that he was then engaged in conversation by
Joseph Blackwell, plant superintendent. His testimony as
to their conversation at that time is as follows:
Well, he asked me what was the matter, and I said that
stuff in the letter on the bulletin board it is not true.
And he said, well, why not? And I said , well, Mr.
Blackwell, I can't talk to you on the floor on company
time, about union.
And he said, why not, the company has nothing to
hide, you can talk all you want to. So, we discussed it
the advantages and disadvantages of the union and
disagreed in this matter.
According to Turner's testimony, about half an hour
later he was summoned to Blackwell's office, where
Blackwell informed him that he "wasn 't quite sure" with
respect to their previous conversation with respect to the
percentage of cards needed to file for an election . He told
Turner that he wanted him to accompany him to Cross'
office. Turner also testified that Blackwell questioned him
as to why the employees wanted a union in the plant and
that he recited complaints that the employees had.
They then proceded to Cross' office, after Blackwell
called Cross. Turner's testimony as to the conversation in
Cross' office may be summarized as follows: Blackwell
said he wanted Cross to straighten him (Turner) out on
the percentage needed for an election; Cross said he
believed it was 30 percent; he told Cross that he was right;
Cross said "Carl, it is your life, if you want to throw it
away and involve yourself in unions, it is up to you";
Cross then "started to tear down the Union," stating that
it "couldn't offer us anything," and adding "that the
Union was no good for employees, it caused trouble";
Cross asked why the employees wanted a union in the
plant; and he told Cross of the same employee complaints
he had previously told Blackwell. Turner further testified
that he told Cross that the Union could get 51 percent of
the employees to sign cards; and that he was going to
back the Union 100 percent and get other people to sign
union cards.
The only allegation in the complaint relating directly to
the above testimony by Turner of his conversations with
Blackwell and Cross is an allegation that he was
unlawfully interrogated by Cross.
Blackwell's testimony corroborates that of Turner that
they had two conversations in which they discussed the
procedures by which the Union could be recognized.
Although there are variations in Blackwell 's testimony
from that of Turner, they are of no materiality.'
'For example , Blackwell testified that 2 or 3 days separated the
conversations. This is of no consequence , since it is apparent from the
testimony of both that their two conversations led to the meeting in Cross'
As to the conversation in Cross' office, both Blackwell
and Cross denied a considerable portion of Turner's
testimony. Cross testified that he read to Turner the
Company' s rule against solicitation and warned him that
he would be discharged for violating it.' Although Turner
did not testify there was any mention about the rule
against solicitation , he did not deny Cross' testimony with
respect thereto. It is the judgment of the Trial Examiner
that Turner, who impressed the Trial Examiner as a
witness attempting to testify to the best of his recollection,
misconstrued the warning about becoming too involved
with the Union as being directed against activities on
behalf of the Union rather than at violations of the
no-solicitation rule.'
Both Cross and Blackwell denied that Cross asked him
why the employees wanted a union, that Turner told Cross
of employees' complaints, and that Turner stated he was
100 percent for the Union and would solicit cards. The
Trial Examiner is of the opinion that Turner's testimony
in this regard should be credited. It appears improbable
that Blackwell, a plant superintendent, and Cross, the
manager of employee relations, of a large plant such as
that of the Respondent, would devote as much time as
they did to Turner merely for the purpose of discussing
the legal question of what percentage of authorization
cards was needed to obtain an election or recognition. It is
inferred from all of the circumstances and the credited
testimony that Blackwell realized from his conversations
with Turner that Turner was strongly prounion and that
the meeting was arranged with Cross in order to
determine whether or not he was active on behalf of the
Union and to attempt to curtail his union activities.
Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent did
coercively interrogate Turner in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
Turner further testified that on March 26, Robert
Brinkley, a foreman,' talked to him around breaktime
(about 2:15 p.m.). His testimony as to their conversation
is as follows:
A. Mr. Brinkley come to me, Mr. Brinkley walked
up to me and said, Carl, what is this I hear about you?
And I said, good or bad? And he said, bad. And I
said, what? And he said, union. And I said that is not
bad that is good.
A. Mr. Brinkley and I were talking, and he said,
well, Carl, he said, this union can hurt you. And I said
in what ways?
And he said for promotions for upgrades, he said,
and he said, family can get hurt because you are
involved or have involved yourself in this union mess.
And I said, Mr. Brinkley, I said, it is one of my
rights if I want to vote for a union or to campaign for
a union , on my time, I said this is one of my rights and
I will do so.
I said I have already told personnel that I had signed
my card and that I was in favor of the union. And if
office.
'his testimony was corroborated by Blackwell.
'There is no allegation in the complaint of a threat by Cross which refers
to this incident and General Counsel did not present a motion to amend
the complaint to include such an allegation.
'Although Respondent denied the allegation in the complaint that
Brinkley was an agent and supervisor, it appears appropriate to conclude
that he was a foreman and enjoyed supervisory status. Respondent offered
no evidence to the contrary.
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY DIV. OF ESB, INC.
my family gets hurt so I will have to just take that
chance.
Q. What did he say to that, if anything?
A. He said, well, I suggest that you drop the union
before you get hurt.
Brinkley testified that he was Turner's supervisor for
about I week prior to Turner's termination, and denied
the above testimony of Turner. On cross-examination he
testified that it was possible that he could have talked to
Turner about the Union. As above stated, Turner
impressed the Trial Examiner as a witness who was
attempting to tell the truth to the best of his recollection.
He did not appear to be a witness who would fabricate a
story out of whole cloth. In the circumstances , Turner's
testimony is credited and it is found that, through
Brinkley's conduct, Respondent threatened Turner with
economic reprisals for union activity in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
David L. Richardson
Richardson had been employed by Respondent for
approximately 2 years and 8 months at the time of his
discharge.10 Richardson testified that he attended a union
meeting in the last part of February; that he signed a
union authorization card; and that he solicited cards on
behalf of the Union. Richardson further testified that
about March 6 he was informed by his admitted
supervisor, James Clanton, that Cross wanted to talk to
him about his vacation. He went to Cross' office where
Cross informed him that he was eligible for 2 weeks'
vacation. Richardson further testified that, when he rose
to leave, Cross told him not to "rush away" and asked
him a number of questions, such as how he liked the job
and how the employees liked "things." Richardson also
testified that Cross asked him whether he thought "we
need a union to solve our problems" and that he replied
that he "thought the Union would help a lot . Because I
was for it myself." Richardson further testified that Cross
stated that a union wasn't needed "to solve our problems
and that if the Union did get in the Company can close
the door."
Cross testified that Richardson was one of a great
number of employees to whom he talked about the
Company' s vacation policy, since there was some question
about the vacation allowances to be given older
employees. Understandably, Cross' memory was vague as
to details of his interviews with the many employees
whom he interviewed with respect to the vacation policy.
However, he categorically denied that he talked to
Richardson about the Union. Furthermore, he testified
that he did not learn about the Union's organizational
activities until the weekly Monday meeting of foremen on
March 11. On the other hand, Brinkley testified that he
learned about the union activity at the plant about the end
of February. It is noted that Clanton testified that he did
not learn about the Union until he read the letter posted
on the bulletin board on March 13." It is concluded that
management personnel, particularly Cross, were aware of
the union activity at least as early as March 6.'=
Richardson impressed the Trial Examiner as a credible
witness and, in the circumstances, his above testimony as
to his conversation with Cross is credited. Based upon said
credited testimony, it is concluded that Cross unlawfully
interrogated Richardson and threatened economic reprisal
if the Union were successful, in violation of Section
"He was one of the first employees hired ( having clock number 7).
781 ►
8(a)(I) of the Act.
Richardson further testified that after he returned from
his conversation with Cross on March 6, Clanton asked
him if he had talked with Cross. His testimony as to their
conversation continues as follows:
A. He told me he said I hope you didn't lie to Mr.
Cross about you was for the union , and I told him no
sir, I didn't go up there and lie and that I told him I
was for the union , and he told me that Mr. Cross did
know and find out if I was lying because he knows
about every union meeting I attended.
So he told me that the company don't need a union,
he told me that you have to let those damn yankees
keep the union up there in Philadelphia, because if they
come down here that the plant can close the door.
And he told me you go back to work and if he
catched me talking to anybody on or unless it was not
on company time on a break time or lunch time, that I
will be discharged from the plant immediately because
he knows that we are all union leaders.
Q. Anything else that he said in that conversation
that you recall?
A. Not as I remember, not as I can remember.
Q. Was there anything said about raises?
A. Yes sir, he told me why it took me so long to get
my raise, you know, was because of those union
meetings that I attended, you know.
Clanton denied Richardson's above testimony about
their conversation. He testified that early in February he
upgraded Richardson and said that if he demonstrated
that he could hold the job he would get an increase and
warned him about chatting with employees. He further
testified that in March 1968 he warned employees
individually about solicitation except during break time
"or on their own time or lunch period."
Richardson's testimony is credited and is concluded
therefrom that, through the conduct of Clanton,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threats
of reprisal for union activity and by creating the
impression of surveillance of employees' protected
activities.
Charles A. Weatherly
Weatherly was employed by Respondent shortly after
the plant commenced operations. For the last 1-1/2 years
of his employment he was in department 22, the
supervisor of which was Hugh McMillan." According to
Weatherly's testimony, he attended the organizational
meeting at Shelton's home and 8 to 10 union meetings.
He signed a union authorization card and was a member
of the organizational committee. He also engaged in the
solicitation of authorization cards on behalf of the Union.
On March 4 he was advised by a union representative to
inform his supervisor that he was engaging in the
solicitation of union cards and was a member of the
This is considered in contrast with Cross' testimony that he learned
about the union activity on March 11 at the foremen's meeting which
presumably Clanton , as a foreman, attended
"This conclusion is also supported by the uncontradicted and credited
testimony of Charles A Weatherly, set forth hereinbelow , that on March 5
he informed his supervisor , Hugh McMillan of the activity on behalf of the
Union.
"Although Respondent denied the allegation in the complaint that
McMillan was an agent and supervisor, it appears appropriate to conclude
that he was a foreman and enjoyed supervisory status. Respondent offered
no evidence to the contrary
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizing committee . Weatherly further testified , without
contradiction , that on March 5 he told McMillan that he
had signed a card and was a member of the committee.
He also testified that, when he was again advised to tell
his foreman in front of a witness that he was engaging in
the solicitation of union cards , he again informed
McMillan of that fact on March 12 and that McMillan
told him "to be careful who I talked to because some
people would run back to the office and tell ." None of his
foregoing testimony was contradicted and is credited. It is
inferred therefrom that management had knowledge of
Weatherly' s union activities.
James A. McKnight
McKnight was employed by Respondent for
approximately 2-1/2 years prior to his discharge. He was
a leadman and set up man and was supervised by Nelson
Pierson . McKnight testified that he attended the
organizational meeting in Shelton' s home, that he signed a
union card , attended all of the union meetings and
attempted to get fellow employees to sign union
authorization cards. It appears from the testimony of both
McKnight and Cross that McKnight complained to Cross
of unfair treatment by Pierson which he told Cross was
due to his (McKnight' s) activities on behalf of the Union.
Therefore, it is apparent that Cross was aware that
McKnight was active on behalf of the Union.
Clarence P. Tallent
Tallent had been employed by Respondent
approximately 6 months prior to his discharge as a
leadman and setup man in the can department which was
under the supervision of Joe Simmons as foreman. It
appears from his testimony that he attended an
organizational meeting at Shelton ' s home, that he signed a
union authorization card in the beginning of March and
that he solicited authorization cards on behalf of the
Union.
The Discharges
As stated above, the aforementioned five employees
were discharged by Cross over a period of approximately
an hour toward the end of the day shift on March 27,
1968. Each of them was told by Cross that he was being
discharged for violation of Respondent's rule against
solicitation , was handed a check or checks (apparently for
the amount due him ), was escorted out of the plant, and
was denied an opportunity to go back into the plant to
obtain his personal possessions (which Cross stated would
be sent to him). Although some of them protested they
had not violated the rule and requested an opportunity to
prove their innocence , Cross stated that he would not give
them such an opportunity . It appears from Cross'
testimony that he based his decision to discharge the five
employees on the information he received from three
employees , which information was incorporated by them
in written statements. The record discloses that he made
no attempt to investigate the truth of the information
contained in the statements.
The statement with regard to Turner was given by
employee Louise B. Caraway and is as follows:
Every [sic] since I heard about the Union wanting to
come into the Exide Carl Turner has asked me about
signing a card . He has come to me during working
hours and ask[ed] me if I was ready to sign a card. I
have always refuse[d ]. Then last Thursday night March
21, 1968, he and Mr. Robert Best came to my house
and talked to me about the union and all it benefited.
He assured me if I signed a card things would be a lot
better for me. I told him I would sign it if he didn't
come back to work & tell & he assured me he
wouldn't . He said no -one would know I sign it . Well it
seem as if he didn ' t keep that promise.
The statement with respect to Richardson was given by
employee W. E. McLeod and is as follows:
As I walked up to the clock at about 4:30 p.m. to
punch out 3 or 4 men was talking about the union. I
was told there would be some changes made in the next
2 weeks around here by one [ Richardson ] but he was
very doubtful that I would be working here at that time
- my impression was that I not being interested in the
union I wouldn ' t have a job at ESB.
It should be noted , at this point, that the record discloses
that Respondent permitted approximately 5 minutes prior
to the end of the shift for cleaning up and washing and
that it was customary for employees to gather at the
timeclock just prior to 4:30 p .m., which was the end of the
shift.
The statement with respect to Weatherly was given by
employee George T. Searight , III, and is as follows:
Al Weatherly called on the phone and asked for
mine and Homer ' s address and phone no. I felt this was
something concerning the union so no information was
given.
The statement with respect to McKnight was also given
by Searight and is as follows:
On March 21, 1968 appr. 10:30 A.M. I was
approached by Allen McKnight to pull some handles.
As I was doing this he began to discuss the union. He
said he would bring me some information concerning
union benefits . Also "Why don't you sign , Are you
scared you'll lose your job?" When I deliver parts to
the tray shop I am usually asked by Allen and Terry.
Have you signed your card yet? Allen gave me this card
during work hours and asked me to sign it.
The statement with respect to Tallent was given by
Caraway and is as follows:
Also I have had Clarence (Joe) Tallent come up to me
on the job and asked if I have sign a card . He has done
so a number of times. He also came up to me yesterday
and asked me if I sign a card & I didn't reply . He said
if I hadn ' t that I & the girl sitting next to me couldn't
talk anymore. I told him if he had anything else to say
to talk to me on the ou[t ]side of the plant. He walked
away . Then came back later & said he didn't mean
anything about what he said.
Cross testified as to how he happened to receive the
above-mentioned statements from the three employees
(McLeod , Searight and Caraway). He testified that he
received a call from Clanton that McLeod has a
complaint and wanted to talk to him. He told Clanton to
send McLeod to his office . Cross further testified that
McLeod told him substantially what was contained in his
statement , that he asked McLeod if he would make a
written statement, and that the above-quoted statement
was that given to him by McLeod.
Cross also testified that Searight "stuck his head in the
door of the office " and asked to speak to him, that
Searight complained people were `bugging" him to sign a
union card, and he invited him in to talk about it.
Searight told him of his complaints with respect to
Weatherly and McKnight ; he asked Searight if he would
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY DIV. OF ESB, INC.
be willing to make a written statement ; and the
above-quoted statement was that written by Searight.
Cross testified that Searight told him that Weatherly
stated that he wanted information as to the addresses and
phone numbers so that he could send a "union man out to
see them," and Searight testified that Weatherly stated
that to be the purpose for the information . On the other
hand, Weatherly testified that he did not state to Searight
what his purpose was in seeking the information , and it is
noted that Searight' s statement is not to the effect that
Weatherly told him the purpose , but only that he,
Searight, "felt this was something concerning the union."
Weatherly' s testimony is credited and it is inferred that
Cross had a basis only for suspecting the purpose.
Cross testified (with respect to receiving the statement
from Caraway) that he received a call from Blackwell
informing him that Caraway complained about people
"bugging her on the job," that Blackwell asked if he
wanted to talk to her, and that he informed Blackwell that
he would talk to her. She came to see him and told him
substantially what was contained in her above-quoted
statement . Caraway testified on direct examination that
she complained to Blackwell about Turner and Tallent
and thereafter she was summoned to Cross' office.
However, on cross-examination she denied that she
reported her complaints to Blackwell . A statement" she
gave to the Board agent prior to the hearing contains the
following: " I don 't know why Cross would have called me
into his office. I never complained to any supervisor that
Tallent or Turner had contacted me. Apparently Cross
found out from someone that I had been contacted.""
The No-Solicitation Rule as of March 27
Respondent has followed the practice of distributing to
employees a handbook entitled "About You and Your
Job." The handbook contains a set of plant rules divided
into three groups according to their "relative importance
and seriousness of any misconduct ." The first group
contains 16 types of misconduct "which are considered
inexcusable, and shall be cause for immediate discharge."
Among this group is the following : "Distribution of
literature or solicitation by employees on company
property which in any way interferes with the work."
On November 26, 1965, the following notice was
posted:
November 26, 1965
NOTICE
For the information of all employees the Sumter
Plant Non-Solicitation Rule is cited here as a
supplement to the employee handbook. It is being
posted for the guidance of all concerned.
(1) There will be no solicitation by non-employees at
any time on company property.
(2) There will be no solicitation by employees on
company property which in any way interferes with the
work.
S. G. Deller
Manager
"She testified that she read the statement , that it was correct, and that
she signed it on the back.
"The contradiction in Caraway 's testimony indicates that Caraway was
not a reliable witness . There is no explanation in the record as to what led
up to her interview by Cross other than that afforded by Cross. In the
circumstances, little purpose would be served in resolving the apparent
conflict between the testimony of Cross and Caraway.
783
Employee Relations
On January 3, 1967, the following notice was posted:16
Exide Alkaline Battery
Division
January 3, 1967
NOTICE
Solicitation and distribution of literature by
non-employees on company property is prohibited.
Solicitation by employees on company property during
working time is prohibited.
Distribution of literature by employees on company
property in non-working areas during working time is
prohibited.
Distribution of literature by employees on company
property in working areas is prohibited.
S. G. Deller
Manager
Employee Relations
It is noted that the rules set forth in the January 3,
1967, notice are identical to the rules which were
considered by the Board in Campbell Soup Company
(Swanson Division ), 170 NLRB No. 167. It appears from
the cited case that the rule against solicitation by
employees" is ambiguous, but that, by a 2 to 1 vote, the
Board panel decided that it will not find such a rule
violative of the Act when both management and
employees interpret it in a manner which does not
unlawfully restrict solicitation . However, the evidence in
the instant case demonstrates that , although employees
believed they were permitted to solicit on behalf of the
Union during lunch and the mid-morning and
mid-afternoon breaks , management interpreted the rule to
apply to a situation in which there is solicitation by one
employee of another when neither of them is on his
working time . Furthermore , it appears that management
also considered it applicable to conversation referring to
the Union even though no solicitation is involved.1fl These
interpretations by management are evidenced by the
discharges of Richardson and Weatherly."
It is alleged in the complaint that the rule in the
handbook against solicitation "which in any way interferes
with the work" was unlawfully maintained and enforced
from November 3, 1967, to April 24, 1968.=° It appears
from the findings hereinabove that the handbook rule was
modified by the notice posted on November 26, 1965, and
the notice dated January 3, 1967. However, in view of the
interpretations by management of the ambiguous
handbook rule, as modified , it is found that during the
period alleged in the complaint Respondent did maintain
and enforce an unlawful no-solicitation rule in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
"Although several of General Counsel 's witnesses testified that they
never saw this notice , the testimony that it was posted on the main bulletin
board is credited.
"This is the only rule which is in issue in this proceeding.
"There is no showing that there was any prohibition against employees
discussing any subject other than the Union on working time.
"Richardson was discharged for making a statement about the Union
within working hours, but when neither employee was on his working time.
They were, as indicated above, standing in line at the timeclock waiting to
punch out, dust prior to the end of the shift . Weatherly was discharged for
calling Searight during working time for the purpose of getting 4his and a
fellow employee's address and phone number
"On April 24, 1968, Respondent posted another notice containing rules
against distribution and solicitation which it is alleged contained a rule
against solicitation which was unlawful. This issue is considered
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cross, who became manager of employee relations
February 26, 1968,=' testified that prior to discharging the
aforesaid five employees he investigated the Company's
enforcement of the no-solicitation policy. His testimony is
as follows:
I knew what our policy was on solicitation, but I had
to investigate it to make doggone sure on how we
enforced it. And how each foreman enforced it, and in
the next couple of days I went to each foreman
individually, and found out how it had been enforced,
and that there was no solicitation allowed during
working hours.
And it was only allowed before work, and after
work, and during breaks and during lunch, for whatever
reason, presents or going away gifts for people or
whatever."
Several of Respondent's foremen testified that they
never observed any solicitation during working time.
However, Cross also testified that no one had been
discharged for soliciting and that "it had never been
reported or seen that anyone was soliciting."
Considerable testimony was adduced with respect to
soliciting practices prior to the discharges. Turner testified
that there were frequent collections for employees who
were leaving and for flowers for people who were sick or
had passed away. Turner also testified that on occasions
supervisors contributed to the funds. He further testified
that Joe Simmons," foreman of the can department, not
only was present when funds were collected during
working time, but also contributed, and that he permitted
money left over from a collection to be kept in a drawer
in his desk until it was needed for the next time there was
a collection . Simmons was not called as a witness and
therefore Turner's testimony with respect to Simmons was
uncontradicted and is credited.
Turner further testified to several instances in which
there was solicitation which was either observed or
participated in by supervisors, particularly with respect to
a collection taken for Shelton, who left Respondent's
employ in the first half of March 1968.
Both Turner and Tallent testified with respect to the
collection for Shelton. According to their testimony,
Linda Buesley, the departmental clerk, and several others
went through the department and solicited money for
Shelton during working time. Also, according to their
testimony, Buesley was the most active in doing so. It is
noted that neither General Counsel nor Respondent called
her as a witness. The Trial Examiner draws no inference
from this failure to call her as a witness by either of the
parties, except with respect to Blackwell's testimony that
she asked for permission to make the collection and he
warned her about soliciting during working time. This
aspect of Blackwell ' s testimony , being uncontradicted, is
credited.
Both Turner and Tallent testified that just prior to
break time they observed Blackwell adding to the fund by
dropping some money in the can used for the collection,
which money, it was stated at the time according to
Tallent, was owed Shelton for work Shelton had done for
Blackwell . They also testified that Blackwell presented the
herembelow.
"Replacing S G. Deller, who left in November 1967.
"This testimony is obviously heresay and is considered only as proof of
what was stated to Cross.
"Although Respondent denied the allegation in the complaint that
Simmons was an agent and supervisor , it appears appropriate to conclude
that he was a foreman and enjoyed supervisory status. Respondent offered
no evidence to the contrary.
collected funds to Shelton during the afternoon break.
Shelton testified that he had no knowledge about how the
money was collected. Blackwell testified that he saw no
evidence of it being collected during working hours and
that Buesley asked him to contribute during the
lunchbreak at which time he dropped a dollar bill into the
can. Blackwell testified that he did not present the money
to Shelton and was not even present during its
presentation. On the other hand, Shelton, who was called
as a witness by Respondent, testified that Blackwell was
present during the presentation and said a few words
about his leaving, although the money was presented to
him by Buesley. Shelton testified that Blackwell did give
him some money for work he had done on Blackwell's
property but that the transaction occurred after the shift
ended.
The contradiction in the testimony of Blackwell and
Shelton as to Blackwell's presence during the presentation
to Shelton is of no moment except that it corroborates the
testimony that Blackwell was present and tends to weaken
the credibility of Blackwell. Although Shelton appeared to
be a credible witness, it is deemed that he must have been
mistaken as to the time when Blackwell gave him the
money Blackwell owed him. There is no explanation in the
record of how Tallent could have known of Blackwell's
obligation to Shelton other than that afforded by Tallent.
This, in addition to the fact that both Turner and Tallent
appeared to the Trial Examiner to be credible witnesses,
persuades the Trial Examiner to credit the testimony that
Blackwell added to the collection for Shelton prior to the
breaktime.
It is quite possible that Blackwell did not observe
solicitation of employees during working time. It is also
quite possible that other foremen who testified they did
not observe collections being made during working time
were testifying to the best of their recollection. The
testimony of Turner and Tallent is credited that
collections were frequently made during working time for
the presentation of gifts or flowers, and that there was
solicitation for Shelton during working time. It is inferred
from the record that, prior to the advent of the Union,
Respondent had a permissive policy with respect to such
solicitations, that the no-solicitation rule was not required
to be policed by the foreman, and that consequently they
paid little or no attention to such activity. This conclusion
is predicated on the above credited testimony of Turner
and Tallent (that collections were frequent and made
during working time) and of Cross that there were no
discharges for solicitation or complaints about solicitation
prior to March 1968. It is also predicated on the lack of
evidence that, prior to the advent of the Union, any
individual employee was warned about solicitation during
his working time.
Concluding Findings With Regard to the Discharges
Considerable testimony was adduced as to whether or
not several of the discharged employees did or did not
engage in solicitation during their working time. However,
the issue herein is not whether the discharged employees
did, in fact, so engage in solicitation, but rather whether
the discharges were discriminatorily motivated, in view of
the information Cross had at the time. The decision to
discharge the five employees was predicated upon the
information contained in the aforementioned three
statements which Cross received. In view of the findings
that no attempt was made to investigate the truth of the
allegations in said statements , that the employees were
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY DIV . OF ESB, INC.
summarily ushered out of the plant without an
opportunity to collect their personal possessions, that
Cross knew or had reason to suspect that each of the
discharged employees was active on behalf of the Union,
that Respondent harbored a strong antiunion animus,26
that with respect to two of the discharged employees,
Richardson and Weatherly , Cross had no information that
they had engaged in solicitation during their working
time , 25 and that prior to the advent of the Union,
Respondent had a permissive policy toward solicitation,
it is concluded that Respondent seized upon prohibited
solicitation by the dischargees as a pretext for ridding
itself of union adherents in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
The No-Solicitation Rule as of April 24
It is alleged in the complaint that on April 24, 1968,
the Respondent posted an invalid no-solicitation rule. The
rule provides, "solicitation by employees on company
property during working hours is prohibited ." This rule
was contained in a notice dated April 24, 1968, which was
identical to the aforementioned notice dated January 3,
1967, except that in the above quoted no-solicitation rule
the word "hours" appears, instead of the word "time."
The earlier notice was signed by S. G. Deller, whereas the
April 24 , 1968, notice was signed by C. E . Cross . Deller
was the former manager of employee relations who left
the Company in November 1967 and was replaced by
Cross . According to the credited testimony , Cross ordered
that the January 3 , 1967, notice be copied except for the
substitution of his name as the manager of employee
relations . It appears from credited testimony that the
stenographer in copying the notice inadvertently
substituted the word "hours" for the word "time" and
that when the mistake was discovered in July 1968 the
notice was retyped in accordance with her original
instructions. 26
Inasmuch as the employees had no means of knowing
that the word "hours" was substituted by mistake , it must
"Evidenced by the aforementioned letter of March 13 posted on the
bulletin board which stated Respondent 's opposition to the Union, and by
the above findings of violations of Sec . 8(a)(1) of the Act.
"As noted heremabove, the only information that Cross had with respect
to Richardson was that Richardson made a vague remark to McLeod that
his job would be in jeopardy , ostensibly if the Union were successful.
Moreover , this remark was made when neither employee was on his
working time but while they were waiting to punch the timeclock.
As noted hereinabove , the only information that Cross had with respect
to Weatherly was that he called Searight and asked for his and a fellow
employee 's address and telephone number , which information Seanght
apparently only suspected was sought for union purposes.
While it is realized that there is no clear definition of what constitutes
solicitation , even among those well-versed in labor law , and it appears
from the record that the employees were confused as to what constitutes
solicitation , the action of Richardson and Weatherly could not reasonably
have been understood by Cross to fall within the meaning of solicitation.
In addition , Richardson 's action occurred when neither he nor the other
employee was on his working time. Cross, as manager of employee
relations, appears to be somewhat sophisticated in labor law , as evidenced
by his testimony that prior to discharging the employees he made a
determination as to whether or not the no-solicitation rule had been
enforced in the past . The inclusion by Cross of Richardson and Weatherly
among the five who were discharged for violating the no-solicitation rule
adds support to the finding that the motive for the discharge was not
merely enforcement of the rule but rather to remove employees who
Respondent knew , or suspected , were active on behalf of the Union
"It is noted that the complaint was issued July 23 , 1968, and it is
reasonable to assume that the mistake was discovered after an examination
of the complaint.
785
be considered that the rule was as it appeared on the
bulletin board between April 24 and July. While it may be
that many employees were not aware of the difference
between the two notices, it does appear that the term
working hours is somewhat more ambiguous and even
more likely to be interpreted as the Company ' s working
hours rather than employees' working time . In view of the
finding hereinabove that the January 3, 1967 , wording was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it follows that the
somewhat more ambiguous wording of April 24, 1968, is
also violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Campbell
Soup Company, 159 NLRB 74, 82.27
The Objection to the Election
As indicated hereinabove , Case 11 -RC-2707 was
consolidated with 11 -CA-3611 for a hearing on Objection
1 with respect to the April 24 no-solicitation rule. It
follows from the finding hereinabove that the rule was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act that the objection is
meritorious.
While the record does not disclose what impact , if any,
said unlawful rule had upon the election , it appears that
"it is not necessary that it be proved affirmatively that the
Union had difficulty with communicating with employees
in order to find that the results of an election were
affected by the rule since its very existence hampered
legitimate organizational activity ." Edmont Inc., 139
NLRB 1528, 1529. Consequently, it will be recommended
that the election be set aside and a new election ordered.
IV, THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent , set forth
in section III, above , occurring in connection with its
operations set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
Y. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor
practices found herein and take certain affirmative action,
as provided in the Recommended Order below , designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.28
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Carl R . Turner , David L. Richardson , Charles
A. Weatherly , James A . McKnight, and Clarence P.
Tallent, it will be recommended that Respondent be
ordered to offer said employees immediate reinstatement
to their former positions or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges and reimburse them for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them
in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289, 291-293 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
"Enforced with respect to the no-solicitation rule, 380 F.2d 372, 373
(C.A. 5).
"Although Respondent changed its April 24, 1968, no-solicitation rule in
July 1968 by reverting to the rule posted on January 3, 1967, nevertheless
since the January 3 rule was also found invalid, it will be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from promulgating,
maintaining , and enforcing an unlawful no-solicitation rule
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It having been found that Objection I to the Election
filed by the Union in Case It-RC-2707 is meritorious, it
will be recommended that the election be set aside and a
second election be held.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record of the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the following: (a) unlawfully interrogating employees with
respect to their adherence to the Union by Cross, a
supervisor; (b) threatening employees with economic
reprisal for union activity by Supervisors Cross, Brinkley,
and Clanton; (c) creating the impression of surveillance of
employees' protected activity by Clanton.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discriminatorily discharging Carl R. Turner, David
L. Richardson, Charles A. Weatherly, James A.
McKnight, and Clarence P. Tallent.
5. From November 3, 1967, to April 24, 1968,
Respondent maintained and enforced an unlawful
no-solicitation rule which prohibited employees from
engaging in solicitation on behalf of the Union at a time
when neither of the employees involved was on his
working time.
6. Commencing on April 24, 1968, Respondent
promulgated and maintained an unlawful no-solicitation
rule which prohibited employees from engaging in
solicitation on behalf of the Union at a time when neither
of the employees involved was on his working time.
7. Objection I filed by the Union to the election in
Case 11-RC-2707 is meritorious.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Carl R. Turner, David L. Richardson,
Charles A. Weatherly, James A. McKnight, and Clarence
P. Tallent immediate reinstatement to their former
positions or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by
them by reason of their discriminatory discharge in the
manner set forth in the section hereinabove entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full employment upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board and its
agents for examination and copying all payroll and other
records containing information concerning Respondent's
backpay obligation under this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Sumter, North Carolina, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
said notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director of
Region 11, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.30
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election heretofore
held in Case 11 RC-2707 be set aside and a second election
be held by ballot conducted for the employees subject to
the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire
record in this proceeding, it is ordered that Exide Alkaline
Battery Division of ESB, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees with respect
to their adherence to the Union or activities on behalf of
it.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals for
activities on behalf of the Union or adherence to it.
(c) Creating the impression of surveillance of
employees ' protected activity.
(d) Promulgating, maintaining , or enforcing a rule
which prohibits employees from soliciting on behalf of the
Union at a time when neither of the employees involved is
on his working time.
(e) Discouraging membership in the International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discriminating against them in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the Notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that the Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
THIS NOTICE IS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that
we, Exide Alkaline Battery Division of ESB, Inc., violated
the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post
this notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY DIV. OF ESB, INC.
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully question employees as to
how they feel about the Union, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or
as to whether they are engaging in activities on behalf
of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with any action that
will affect their employment or their working conditions
because they are in favor of the Union or because they
are active on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT give the employees the impression that
we are engaging in surveillance of the exercise of their
above rights.
WE WILL NOT promulgate , maintain , or enforce any
rule prohibiting employees from soliciting on behalf of
the Union, or any other labor organization, when
neither of the employees involved is on his working
time.
WE WILL. NOT discourage membership in the aforesaid
Union, or in any other labor organization, by
discriminating against any of our employees in regard
to the hire and tenure of their employment or any term
or condition thereof.
787
WE WILL offer to Carl R. Turner, David L.
Richardson, Charles A. Weatherly, James A.
McKnight, and Clarence P. Tallent immediate
reinstatement to their former positions, or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of their
discriminatory discharge.
Dated By
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY
DIVISION OF ESB, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Notify the above named employees if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia
Building , Winston-Salem , North Carolina 27101,
Telephone 723-2303.