Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 584 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and HERBERT E.
HARMON
Co•se No. 18-0-1136.-Decided April 23, 1,946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 22, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral
argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any
of the parties, and none was held.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and, to the extent consistent with the Decision and Order
herein, hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Exam-
iner, and finds merit in the respondent's exceptions.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent's failure to employ
Herbert E. Harmon constituted discrimination in regard to his hire
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. We do not agree.
In arriving at his finding of discrimination, the Trial Examiner
relied principally on the following factors : (1) that the burden of
proof was on the respondent to establish that it honestly believed that
Harmon's stubbornness and bad temper "associated with his union
activities" at the Lake Shore Tire & Rubber Company was "unreason-
able" or extended "beyond the permissible bounds of union activities" ;
(2) that the respondent's failure to introduce the Lewis System's
report concerning the investigation of Harmon in itself warranted
the Trial Examiner in discrediting the respondent's witnesses with
respect to their contents; and (3) that Personnel Manager Eib ad-
67N.L R.B,No 79
584
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 585
mitted that Harmon's union activities at Lake Shore were the reason
for the respondent 's refusal to hire him.
With respect to point one , we are of the opinion that the Trial
Examiner is in error as to where the burden of proof lies. The
burden was on counsel for the Board to prove that the respondent was
discriminatorily motivated in refusing to employ Harmon rather than
on the respondent to prove the opposite . As for point two, it appears
that no objection was made to the introduction of oral testimony con-
cerning the contents of the report and that the re ;ort could have been
offered in evidence by counsel for the Board. Under these circum-
stances we do not feel that the respondent 's failure to offer the report
in evidence in itself warrants discrediting the respondent 's witnesses
with respect to what they relied on in refusing to employ Harmon.
The testimony of Harmon,' upon which the Trial Examiner based his
finding of an admission by Personnel Manager Eib , is ambiguous and
equivalent to no more than an admission by Eib that Harmon's
"unionism" was discussed during the conversation in question. Con-
sistent with this view is Eib's denial that lie at any time told Harmon
that the respondent would not employ him because he had been a
committeeman or steward or had been active in adjusting grievances
at the Lake Shore Tire & Rubber Company.
On the other hand there is uncontradicted testimony in the record
negativing a finding of discrimination in this case. Thus, although
the respondent was aware at an early date that Harmon was active in
union affairs , it nevertheless thereafter undertook an extensive investi-
gation of Harmon's qualifications and did not pass upon these qualifi-
cations until the investigation was completed . The respondent has
employed other union members . And the record is wholly devoid of
evidence pointing to an anti -union animus on the part of the re-
spondent.
Upon the entire record we are of the opinion , and find, that the
evidence fails to establish that Harmon was refused employment be-
cause of his union membership and activities . Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
i Harmon ' s testimony is as follows
Q Didn 't you [Harmon ] say. "It is my unionism which has prevented me from
getting employment here"?
A That was discussed in the conversation, 3 es
Q Did you say that?
A. He [Eib] and I both did.
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint against the respondent, Firestone Tire & Rubber Com-
pany, Des Moines, Iowa, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Stanley D. Kane, Esq, for the Board.
Harold L Mull, Esq., of Akron, Ohio, for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Herbert E. Harmon, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint dated May 21, 1945,
against Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Des Moines, Iowa, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint together with notices of
hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon Herbert E. Harmon.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent refused to hire Herbert E Harmon on April 25, 1945, and
has since that, time continued to refuse to hire him-, because he joined the United
Rubber Workers of America, C. I 0., herein called the Union, and because he
engaged in concerted activities with other members of the Union ; and thereby
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer the respondent denied that it had engaged in the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Des Moines, Iowa, on June 7, 1945,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the case the respondent objected to the taking of testimony
on the ground that the complaint did not state an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of the Act The undersigned overruled the objection.' At the
close of the Board's case the undersigned reserved ruling on a motion by the
respondent to dismiss the complaint. The respondent renewed its motion near
the close of the hearing and the motion was then denied. At that time the
undersigned granted without objection a motion of Board's counsel to conform
the pleadings to the proof "as to formal matters." Both the Board and the
respondent participated in oral argument at the conclusion of the taking of
testimony, and have filed briefs with the undersigned.
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 THE RESPONDENT
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company is an Ohio corporation with its principal
office at Akron, Ohio. It operates a tire manufacturing plant at Des Moines,
Iowa, the sole plant involved in this proceeding.
1The respondent cited N. L R. B v. National Casket Co ., 107 F. ( 2d) 992 (C C A. 2),
to support its motion. However, this question was adjudicated in Phelps Dodge Corpora-
tion v N. L. R B., 313 U. S. 177.
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 587
It was stipulated by the parties that the respondent purchases raw materials
for its Des Moines plant valued in excess of $100,000 per year, all of which were
shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Iowa. Each year, finished
products valued in excess of $100,000.00 are shipped from its Des Moines plant
to points outside the State of Iowa.
At the hearing the respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
. Jr. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations and admits to membership employees of the
respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to hire
Herbert E. Harmon began his employment as a rubber worker in 1929 at the
Lake Shore Tire and Rubber Company, Des Moines, Iowa, hereinafter referred
to as Lake Shore. He remained in the employ of Lake Shore until December
1941, at which time he was laid off by reason of a substantial curtailment in that
Company's operations.' The record show that during his employment at Lake
Shore he worked in various phases of tire manufacturing. In March 1942, he
was employed by United States Rubber Company, also located in Des Moines,
and hereinafter referred to as U S. Rubber. On or about April 25, 1945, he re-
quested and was granted a release from that Company. His duties at U. S.
Rubber were, in the main, similar in nature to his duties at Lake Shore. That
Harmon was an experienced and efficient rubber worker is uncontradicted in
the record.
In 1938, while in the employ of Lake Shore, Harmon joined the Union and im-
mediately thereafter became extremely active in its behalf. His union activities
led to his selection as a shop steward and as a member of the Union's executive
committee. As shop steward he was required to present union grievances to the
management, and as a member of the executive committee he participated in
negotiations which resulted in a closed-shop contract between the Union and Lake
Shore.
Harmon's union activities while employed at U. S. Rubber paralleled his
union activities at Lake Shore As an example, during the union organizing cam-
paign at U S Rubber, Harmon signed up approximately 500 members which
fact was highly instrumental in establishing the Union as the bargaining agent
for U. S. Rubber's production and maintenance employees. After the Union was
established be served as a building steward and also as a member of the com-
mittee which negotiated a collective bargaining agreement between that Com-
pany and the Union.'
In January 1945, the respondent's tire manufacturing plant in Des Moines
was under construction, and the evidence shows that it was not until February
26, 1945, that actual production operations were started. However, the respond-
ent's personnel manager, Dwight Eib, opened an office in Des Moines sometime
in November 1944, for the purpose of hiring workers for its future operations.
In the middle of January 1945, Harmon visited Eib and requested employment
2 Harmon left Lake Shore in 1931 to work on a farm and was rehired in 1932.
'The facts set forth above relative to Harmon's employment and union activities are
taken from Harmon", uneontradicted testimony which is credited by the undersigned
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but was told that he would have to get his release from the U. S. Rubber before
anything further could be done in the matter. A few weeks following this visit,
Harmon wrote to the respondent again requesting employment but the respondent
failed to answer his letter. Sometime thereafter Harmon telephoned Eib and
an application for employment was mailed to him which he filled out and mailed
back to the respondent.
In April, Harmon again visited Eib's -office but on this occasion he was re-
ferred to Robert Schaller, the respondent's assistant personnel manager. After
inquiring about Harmon's experience as a rubber worker, Schaller told him he
would have to procure a release from U. S. Rubber before the respondent could
employ him. Harmon thereafter requested and was granted his release by that
company on April 25. 1945, as stated hereinbefore, and on the same day presented
it to Schaller.' Harmon was then given a "personal history application" by
Schaller and, according to Schaller's testimony, while Harmon was filling out
the application, he checked by telephone certain references furnished therein,
among which were Lake Shore and U. S. Rubber. It is Schaller's testimony that
he looked over Harmon's completed application and then informed Harmon
that he "would not be acceptable to our operations" because of "his bad temper
and stubborn disposition." Harmon thereupon asked him if his union activi-
ties were not the real reason for not being hired and that he replied "definitely
no." Schaller also testified that "I believe I told Mr. Harmon to come in and
see me the following day; that I would take his application up with Mr. Eib"
. . . that Harmon came back the next day, "and I told him that I had taken
up this case with Mr. Eib and the answer was still the same." It is also Schal-
ler's testimony that he was apprised of Harmon's "bad temper and stubborn
disposition" by Personnel Manager Benton of Lake Shore, who also stated at the
time that Harmon was not eligible for reemployment at that Company for the
same reason. Schaller admitted that during the same conversation with Ben-
ton he was also apprised of the fact that Harmon was active in the Union while
employed there. Schaller further admitted that his inquiry at U. S. Rubber dis-
closed that Harmon's employment record there was good and that he was eligible
for reemployment by that company.
Eib testified that shortly after Harmon talked to Schaller, Harmon came into
his office, "asking why Firestone did not employ him." In answer to Harmon's
question, he told him that he was not eligible for employment at that time because
he desired to make a more complete investigation of the references found in his
application in view of certain information he received from Benton and the
fact that U. S. Rubber was willing to release him at a time when that company
was critically in need of men.
Eib further testified that a few days before May 10, Harmon again contacted
him and that he told Harmon that his investigation was still going on. Eib
testified further that on or about May 10, he had another conversation with
Benton wherein "Mr. Benton reiterated that Mr. Harmon was not eligible for
reemployment at the Lake Shore Tire & Rubber Company . I questioned him,
why,-and it was pointed out that Mr . Harmon had an extremely bad temper
which he could not control, and also that he was very stubborn." 6 Eib also
testified that during that conversation, Benton mentioned the fact that Harmon
was a member of the local union at Lake Shore but that Benton did not expand
on that statement.
4 There is no serious conflict in the record with respect to the several contacts Harmon
had with the respondent 's employment office between the middle of January and April 25.
6 From Eib's testimony , it appears that he had his first conversation with Benton just
prior to- May 1.
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 589
Eib testified on direct examination that Harmon's union activities were not
taken into consideration when he made the decision not to hire him. Also on
direct examination he stated that his unwillingness to hire Harmon was based
solely upon the information he had received from Benton concerning Harmon's
stubbornness and argumentativeness as well as Lake Shore's position with respect
to the rehiring of Harmon. However, on cross-examination he testified that
on or about May 5,6 he retained the Lewis System, a private detective agency,
for the purpose of rechecking the information furnished by Benton,' that on
May 23 a report was received from that agency which substantiated the informa-
tion received from Benton, and that it was solely on the basis of the report that
he refused to hire Harmon 8 Also on cross-examination, he stated that it was
the respondent's usual policy to make its own investigation of prospective pro-
duction employees, that it retained the Retail Credit Agency to investigate Sal-
aried employees, but that on approximately 10 occasions it had also used that
agency to investigate production workers;' and that the Lewis System was
used for the first time to investigate Harmon.
Harmon testified that on April 25, the day he handed his release to Schaller,
he was told that his application for employment would be brought to Eib's
attention and that he should return the following day He returned the fol-
lowing day and was told by Schaller that Eib had issued instructions not to hire
him. He was also told by Schaller, he testified, that the respondent decided
not to hire him for the reason of certain information it had received from Benton,
which was, in substance, that a plant manager of Lake Shore advised its per-
sonnel office not to rehire him because of the stubborn manner in which he
handled union grievances while he was employed there. According to Harmon,
he thereupon explained to Schaller his duties as a union steward and the pro-
cedure he followed in adjusting grievances at Lake Shore.'°
After this conversation, Harmon stated that he went to see Benton in order
to learn mole fully the exact status of his record at Lake Shore, that he bad a
conversation with Benton, and that Benton told him "that Mr. Fraser (plant
manager for Lake Shore) had left word that I was not to be employed: that
I was too much-that is, taking too much for granted, going through the union
lines of work taking tip time, and through the grievance procedure, and he,
[Fraser] himself, didn't approve of that," and also that "I had been the dis-
turbance on grievance matters at U. S. Rubber Company."
Following this conversation with Benton, Harmon testified that he contacted
Eib and, after relating his visit with Benton, a long discussion followed regarding
unionism during which both he and Eib admitted that his union activities at Lake
Shore prevented him from getting employment with the respondent.' Eib did
not deny this discussion with Harmon Harmon also testified that during his
many conversations with Eib there was never any mention made by Eib that
The charge in this case was filed with the Board on May 3
Ed) and Schaller both testified that they did not recheck Harmon's iecord at IT S
Rubber
s The respondent did not offer the Lewis Sy stem's report in evidence
x Eib did not testify as to whether the Retail Credit Agency was used to investigate
Harmon.
'O Schaller (lid not deny having had an extended discussion concerning unionism with
Harmon
Harmon testified on cross-examination as follows
Q Didn't you say "It is my unionism which has prevented me from getting em-
ployment here" 9
A That was discussed, in the conversation, yes
Q Did you say that?
A He and I both did [Italics supplied 1
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Benton told him that Harmon had a stubborn and bad tempered disposition. He
denied that Schaller made any remark to him to the effect that Schaller was
informed by Benton that he was exceedingly argumentative with other employees
at Lake Shore, and said that he could not recall Schaller ever stating that he was
supposed to have had a bad temper. Harmon's testimony regarding his conver-
sation with Benton which revealed that the only reason Harmon was ineligible
for reemployment at Lake Shore was because of certain instructions left in Lake
Shore's personnel office by its plant manager, and that the motivating reason for
such instructions was that the plant manager had a certain amount of difficulty
in adjusting union grievances with Harmon, remains uudenied oil the record
After considering the entire testimony of Harmon, Eib, and Schaller, the
undersigned finds that the testimony of Harmon, in the main, was detailed and
convincing while that of Eib and Schaller was manifestly general and somewhat
evasive. Moreover, the record discloses certain conflicts between the testimony
of Schaller and that of Eib a The undersigned credits the entire testimony of
Harmon.
The record shows that Harmon was an efficient and experienced rubber worker.
The respondent does not deny the fact that at the time Harmon sought employ-
ment as a rubber worker it was endeavoring to hire that type of worker for its
plant 13 The respondent contends, however, that Harmon was refused employment
solely on the grounds furnished by Benton, and which were allegedly supported by
the Lewis System's report, namely, that Harmon was possehsed of a stubborn
and bad tempered disposition The respondent further contends that its agents
had a legal right to rely on the information it received from Benton if they chose
to do so and that it is immaterial whether the information is true or false.
It is difficult for the undersigned to believe that the respondent, while seeking
workers at it time when there is a stringent manpower shortage, should demand
that its employees who are engaged in a mass production operation be both
pliable and placid. Moreover, after considering the entire record, there is no
convincing evidence found therein to support a finding that the allegedly stubborn
and bad tempered disposition of Harmon in any manner affected his duties as
a rubber worker. On the other hand there is clear and convincing evidence that
Hainion's union activities alone was the only reason for the position taken by
Lake Shore regarding the rehiring of Harmon.
From the entire body of the evidence, it is a fair inference, and the undersigned
finds, that Benton informed Eib and Schaller that Harmon's stubbornness and
had tempered disposition was associated with his union activities rather than
in connection with his production work, and that this information »as relayed
to Harmon by both Eib and Schaller.
It may have been a fact that Harmon was persistent in his demands while
performing his duties as an officer of the Union while at Lake Shore, but it is
a well known fact that during collective bargaining negotiations both manage-
nient and labor, as a general rule, are persistent in their demands For this
reason it was incumbent upon the respondent to adduce evidence to show that
An example of this is that Schaller testified that the Lewis System was used on more
than one occasion by the respondent, while Rib testified that the investigation of Harmon
was the only time that agency was ever used Another example is that Schaller testified
that be told Harmon on or about April 25 that Bib instructed him not to hire Harmon,
while Eib testified that Harmon was never iefused employment until May 23, the date on
which Ell) received the Lewis System Report
13 Lee Keyser, Area War Manpower Director, testified that the respondent had an un-
filled order for rubber workeis on file in his office on April 25 and that at the time of the
hearing the order was still unfilled He also testified that the respondent has the highest
priority among similar industries in the D's .Mines Area
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 591
it honestly believed Harmon's attitude or temperament, while engaged in union
activities, was unreasonable, or that it honestly believed Harmon went beyond
the permissible bounds of union activity, in order that the allegation of a
refusal to hire for union activities found in the complaint could be dissipated.'
This the respondent failed to do.
B Concluding findings
Since the credible evidence shows, and the undersigned has found, that
both Eib and Schaller told Harmon that they had been informed by Benton
that his stubbornness and bad temper were revealed to Lake Shore through his
union activities, the undersigned is unable to credit the respondent's contention
that both Eib and Schaller relied only on that part of Benton's statements to
t hem which related to Harmon 's temperament. Also, since the respondent failed
to introduce in evidence the Lewis System's report which allegedly supported
the information received from Benton and winch the respondent allegedly relied
upon to refuse Harmon employment, the undersigned does not give credence to
the testimony of respondent's witnesses relating thereto Finally, since the
credible testimony of Harmon reveals that during a conversation between Eib
and Harmon . in which Harmon 's union activities at Lake Shore was extensively
discussed , Eib admitted that such activities was the reason for the respondent's
retusal to hire him, and the additional tact that the respondent introduced no
evidence to show that it believed that such activities were beyond the permissible
bounds of union activity, it must be found that the refusal to hire Harmon Iias
violative of the Act.
IV. THE. EFI. ECT OF THE UNFAIR I AItOR 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 aril
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Since it has been round that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(51 of the Act.
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire of Herbert E Harmon and theieb,;
discouraging membership in United Rubber Workers of America, the respondent,
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, has engaged in. and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has ongaged
14 See Alatter of Fred A Snow Company, 53 N L R B 977.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor 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 and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Des Moines, Iowa, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor or-
ganizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate employment without prejudice to full seniority and other
tights and privileges to Herbert E. Harmon, at the same or a substantially
equivalent position at which he would have been employed on April 25, 1945,
as the case may be, had the respondent not unlawfully refused to hire him,
placing him, if employment is not immediately available, upon a preferential
list and thereafter, in said manner, offer him employment as it becomes available;
(b) Make whole Herbert E. Harinnn for any loss of pay he may have suffered
as the result of the respondent's refusal to bile him on April 25, 1945, to the
date of offer of employment, or placement upon a preferential list as above pro-
vided, less his net earnings' during the said period,
(c) Post at its Des Moines, Iowa, plant, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A" Copies of the notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon
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.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid. -
1d By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than foi the rrspondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking emploNment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon
}Federal, State. county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings See Republic Steel Corporation ' N L R B 311 U S 7
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 593
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 2.5, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief
in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/or brief, 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. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing within ten (10) dais from the date of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
JosiPH E. GUBBINS,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 22, 1945
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEI'.s
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 not in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exeicise of their right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , or any other labor organiza-
tion , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
We will offer immediate employment to Herbert E Harmon at the same
or -ubstantially equivalent position ,it which he would have been employed
had lie not been discriminated against on April 25, 1945, and make him whole
foi any loss of pay suffered as a result of the disciiniination, placing him, if
employment is not immediately available , upon a preferential list and
theieafter , in said manner , offer him employment as it becomes available
All our empio,%ees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization We will not discriminate in regard to
hire of tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization
THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
Dated ---------------------- By ------------------
(Representati ve) (Title)
NOTE--Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material
(92148--46-N 0 67--:::)