Granite State Machine Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1948

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

In the Matter Of GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 1-C-2540.-Decided November ^? , 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 14, 1947, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway 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.' The Trial Examiner further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed in these regards. Thereafter, exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report were filed by the Respondent, together with a brief
in support thereof.
After the hearing, the Respondent moved that the Board examine
the complete file of the Regional Director in this case to inform itself
concerning the circumstances under which the witness, Hewitt, came
into the case. This motion is denied, for the fact that Hewitt was a
litigant in a personal suit against the Respondent, as alleged in the
motion, was fully developed in the testimony before the Trial Exam-
iner. The allegation in the motion concerning an alleged letter to the
Regional Director from Hewitt's counsel largely concerns the credibil-
ity, not of Hewitt, but of his counsel, whose testimony at the hearing,
while not condoned, was nevertheless not directly material to the merits
of the unfair labor practices herein concerned.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
3 Section 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial Examiner
found were violated , are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as
amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
80 N. L. R. B., No. 20.
79
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifi-
cations and additions.
(1) The Trial Examiner found that the mass discharge of the
complainants on May 4, 1945, was violative of Section 8 (3) of the
Act. We agree. In addition to the reasons assigned by the Trial
Examiner, our agreement is also based on the inconsistency of the
Respondent's defenses and other circumstances set forth below. In
May 1945, the Respondent sought to justify the discharges because
of lack of work. As set forth in the Intermediate Report, the record
fails to support this claim. Later, after the filing of charges and
investigation by Board agents, the Respondent assigned not only lack
of work, but also relative inefficiency, as the reason for the discharge
of the complainants. It is of compelling significance that the Re-
spondent's investigation of the relative inefficiency of the employees
did not occur until the lay-offs had already taken place. The con-
nection between the lay-offs and the post-lay-off studies is, therefore,
so tenuous as to be unconvincing. After the issuance of the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent in its brief to the Board sought to
justify the lay-offs by the following statement:
Those who were interfering with management's plan for work
were selected for dismissal, not because they were for the union,
but because of their demonstrated attitude toward their work.
The union element was a mere condition, not a cause of their
dismissal.
The record fails to establish that after the advent of the Union the
complainants became inefficient or neglectful of their work. It does
appear, however, that shortly after the Respondent's application to
the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor for author-
ity to install an incentive wage system, the Respondent' s employees
organized and secured affiliation with the Union, and that the Re-
spondent knew that men active in the organization effort were opposed
to the incentive system. Only in that protected sense was it shown
that the employees "demonstrated [an] attitude" which caused the
Respondent to take unlawful retaliatory steps. As fully set forth in
the Intermediate Report, the Respondent, inter alia, interrogated
employees concerning the Union, conducted a poll to determine their
group sentiment, and finally on May 4, precipitately effected a mass
lay-off which affected only union members, including with unmistak-
able design the men most active in bringing the Union to the plant
with the one exception noted and considered by the Trial Examiner.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 81
(2) The Respondent urges that the complaint should be dismissed
on the following two grounds : It contends that, pursuant to the
terms of a collective bargaining agreement executed by the Respond-
ent and the Union on January 7, 1946, and according to representa-
tions then made by the Union, the Union agreed to waive the instant
charges involving the complainants, and have the issues resolved
under the grievance procedure of the contract. We do not agree.
The grievance procedure provisions of the contract fall short of
having the effect of an agreement between the parties to waive pre-
vious unfair labor practices. In addition to the express language
of the contract, the record shows only that Board agents suggested
that the case might be settled by agreement, and that after the execu-
tion of the contract a union representative assured the Respondent
that the Union would overlook previous charges. As the Board did
not participate in any agreement to waive the previously filed charges
it is, by long established precedent,' not precluded from determining
in its own discretion whether, under the circumstances of the case,
it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to give effect to any waiver,
oral or otherwise, by the complainant.
The Respondent further contends, in effect, that the delay in prose-
cuting this case warrants application of the equitable defense of
laches. The record shows that 5 days after the May 4, 1945, lay-offs,
the Union filed a timely amended charge of which the Respondent
promptly had notice. Thereafter, the Respondent knew that the
Board was conducting an investigation, and that no order had ever
been issued dismissing said charges, either before or after the execution
of the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement. While we
deplore the fact that there was a lapse of approximately 2 years
between the filing of the first amended charge and the issuance of
the complaint herein, it is apparent that the delay was due to the
difficulty experienced by Board agents in obtaining evidence with
respect to the issues in question. Under the circumstances, we find
that in this case the public interest requires that the wrongdoing
finally revealed be fully remedied.
Therefore, we shall adopt the Trial Examiner's recommended order
as to all complainants, except Ames. Contrary to the Trial Examiner,
we find that the Respondent offered him substantially equivalent
employment in midsummer 1945, and that he refused it in order to
retain the position he then held. We shall, therefore, not order the
reinstatement of Ames, and shall order that he be made whole only
8 Matter of Kelly Springfield Tire Co., 6 N. L. R. B . 325, 347-348.
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date upon which he was laid off to the date he declined the
Respondent's offer of reinstatement.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Granite State
Machine Company, Inc., of Manchester, New Hampshire, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America
(CIO), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by laying
off, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against any of its em-
ployees because of their union membership or activities;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of
America (CIO), or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
,effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer George H. Camf, Stephen Chakas, Leo A. Dionne, Mau-
rice E. Houle, Richard J. Labelle, Laurier Marquis, Lindsay L. McKee,
and Howard W. Payne immediate and full reinstatement to the posi-
tion which each occupied on May 4, 1945, or to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges;
(b) Make each of said employees whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages during the period from May
4, 1945, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during said period;
(c) Make whole Forrest W. Ames for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages during the period from May 4, 1945,
to the date on which he declined the Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during said period;
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 83
(d) Post immediately at its plant in Manchester, New Hampshire,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 4
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the
First Region, shall, after having been duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its employees by taking away privileges previ-
ously enjoyed by them, by preparing an anti-union petition and/or
withdrawals from the Union to be signed by employees on the Re-
spondent's time and premises, by exerting pressure on employees to
sign a Respondent-prepared anti-union petition and/or withdrawals
from the Union, by urging employees to vote against the Union at
an election conceived and supervised by the Respondent on its time
and premises, and by threatening to discontinue or discontinuing a
proposed incentive plan to penalize its employees for selecting the
Union as their bargaining representative.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall he inseited before the words, "A Decision and Order" the words "Decree of the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing."
817:119-49-vol. 80-7
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
George H. Camf Richard J. LaBelle
Stephen Chakas Laurier Marquis
Leo A. Dionne Lindsay L. McKee
Maurice E. Houle Howard W. Payne
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Forrest W. Ames for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from May
4, 1945, to the date he declined our offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------------
(Repiesentative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Leo J. Halloran, for the Board.
Mr. Louis E. Wyman, of Manchester, N. H., for the Respondent.
Mr. Frederick- Cohen, of Grant and Angoff, Boston, Mass., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on March 28, 1947, by United Steel-
workers of America ( C. I. 0.), herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the First
Region ( Boston, Massachusetts ), issued a complaint dated April 14, 1947, against
Granite State Machine Company , Inc., 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 and notice of hearing were served on the Respondent
and the Union.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 85
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that on May 4, 1945, the Respondent discharged nine named employees 1
because they had joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection, and that thereafter the Respondent had refused to reinstate them for
the same reason; (2) from about April 1, 1945, the Respondent had interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act by various acts, including, but not limited by, the follow-
ing: (a) interrogating employees relative to their union membership and activi-
ties, (b) accusing employees of being trouble makers because of their union
activities, (c) disparaging the Union and its officers for the purpose of dis-
couraging its employees' loyalty to, and interest in, the Union, (d) stating to
employees that the union officers were gangsters, (e) stating to employees that
the Union was just a racket and a money-making organization, (f) stating that
the dues paid by employees to the Union were improperly used by the union
officers, (g) threatening to close down the plant if the Union became bargaining
representative for its employees, (h) offering inducements to employees if they
would refrain from joining the Union, (i) suggesting to employees that they
form an independent organization for the purpose of undermining the organiza-
tional efforts of the Union, (j) offering financial and other assistance to its
employees to induce them to form an independent union, (k) urging employees
not to join the Union, (I) penalizing employees for their attendance at union
meetings by taking away privileges previously enjoyed by them, (in) threatening
employees with loss of their positions unless they gave up their union actiN ities,
(n) preparing an anti-union petition z to be signed by employees on Respondent's
time and premises, (o) exerting pressure on employees to sign an anti-union
petition 3 prepared by the Respondent, (p) conducting an election on Respondent's
time and premises and under Respondent's supervision to determine if its em-
ployees wanted the Union as bargaining representative, (q) urging employees
to vote against the Union at an election conceived and supervised by the Respond-
ent on its time and premises, (r) threatening to discontinue a proposed incentive
plan in the plant if the Union became bargaining representative for the employees,
(s) discontinuing a proposed incentive plan to punish its employees for selecting
the Union as their bargaining representative, (t) seeking to have its discharged
employees blacklisted from working in other plants as punishment for their
union membership and activities, (u) committing economic reprisals on its
discharged employees because of their union membership and activities (v) con-
ferring with certain of its employees on Respondent's time and premises for the
purpose of inducing them to give up their union membership and activities.
The Respondent's answer, filed on April 22, 1947, admitted the discharges but
denied that they were related to union membership or activities and alleged
that they were made because of substantial cut-backs in contract work which
required curtailment of employment. The answer further denied the remainder
of the alleged unfair labor practices. Certain affirmative allegations of the
answer, although not specifically so worded, are interpreted by the undersigned
to raise the issue of laches and will be so treated.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Manchester, New Hampshire, from
May 19 to 23 inclusive and from May 26 to 29 inclusive, 1947, before the under-
1 Forrest W Ames, George H Camf , Stephen Chakas , Leo A. Dionne , Maurice E Houle,
Richard J LaBelle , Laurier Marquis , Lindsay L McKee, and Howard W. Payne
z Amended at the hearing to insert here "and/or withdrawals for the Union."
Amended at the hearing to insert here "and/or withdrawals for the Union."
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Board, the Respondent, and the Union were each represented by counsel, and
all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be beard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, Board's counsel moved to
amend the complaint as indicated in clauses (n) and (o) in the second para-
graph above. The motion was granted. At the close of the Board's case, the
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied, without
prejudice to the right to make a like motion at the close of the evidence. At the
close of the hearing, the undersigned granted a motion by counsel for the Board
to amend the complaint to conform to the proof as to formal matters, and
granted a motion by counsel for the Respondent to amend its answer to conform
to the proof, specifically to change the word "discharge" to "lay-off for ineffi-
.ciency" so far as the evidence made that expression applicable. On the Re-
spondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the hearing, the
undersigned reserved ruling. This motion is now denied, except to the extent
indicated hereinafter, for the reasons herein set forth. Oral argument by coun-
sel for the Board and the Respondent was heard and is part of the record.
Briefs were filed with the undersigned by counsel for the Board, the Respondent,
and the Union.
On July 2, 1947, counsel for the Respondent filed with the undersigned a
"Request for Findings and Rulings." As to the requested findings of fact, the
undersigned grants in substance: No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 22, and 24. Nos. 4, 7,
8, 12, 14, and 29 are granted only insofar as they are consistent with the findings
herein. The following are rejected: Nos. 9, 13, 15 to 21 both inclusive, 23 to 28
both inclusive, and 30 to 34 both inclusive. The two requested rulings of law
are rejected.
Considerable conflicting testimony was given on certain important issues
herein. The undersigned has not labored this report with lengthy explanations
of the manner in which he resolved these conflicts. Suffice it to say that, in
making the findings of fact herein, the undersigned has carefully considered the
testimony of all the witnesses, bearing in mind their demeanor and expression
as observed at the hearing, and has made a detailed study of the transcript of
testimony and the voluminous exhibits. The undersigned has also considered the
helpful arguments and briefs of counsel. Hence, from his observation of the
witnesses and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, incorporated under the laws of the State of New Hampshire
in 1940, was, in 1944 and 1945, engaged in the manufacture of machine parts
principally in war production as a subcontractor for prime contracto s. Since
the end of the war the Respondent has been engaged in the manufacture of
machines, machine parts, and machine tools. The principal raw materials
used by the Respondent in its operations are steel and alloys. During the calen-
dar year 1946, the Respondent purchased raw materials of a value in excess of
$50,000, of which about half came from outside the State of New Hampshire.
During the sane period, the Respondent manufactured products of in value in
excess of $100,000, of which 30 percent by value was shipped to points outside
the State of New Hampshire. The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 87
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization, admitting to membership employees of
the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Chronological events
In February 1945, the Respondent engaged business engineers to install a
cost system and make a study looking to installation of an incentive plan.
On or about April 2, 1945, the Respondent submitted to the Wage and Hour
Division of the War Labor Board a Form 10 application for approval of its wage
incentive plan. The employees suspected, from the actions of the engineers,
who timed men and machines, that the incentive system would result in a
speed-up and, among themselves, expressed opposition to it.
Commencing early in April 1945, employee Howard Payne, an all-around
machinist, obtained the names of employees who favored a union. Having
obtained about 35 names on the list, Payne, accompanied by employees George
Camf, Laurier Marquis, and Roland Lesmerises' on Saturday, April 7, 1945,
went to the union hall to see about getting a representative of an appropriate
union.'
On Monday morning, April 9, Edmond Allard, the Respondent's treasurer
and general manager, called Marquis and Camf separately into his office'
Allard told Marquis he knew that he and Payne and Camf had been to see
Fecteau and asked why. Marquis told him they went to see about getting
an organizer for a union. Allard told Marquis that they should not have
gone before talking to him and that it was a sneaky, dirty trick. The interview
of Camf was similar, Allard telling him that he already knew of the visit to
Fecteau and asking him why he wanted a union and also asking Camf, who
had been a foreman for a time before April 1945, why he was mixed up with a
group of trouble makers.
On April 11, at about 9 a. m., Superintendent Edmond L'Ecuyer, acting on
instruction of Allard, told Payne to shut his machine off and to lock his tool
box, that he was "all through." Payne asked L'Ecuyer the reason and L'Ecuyer
said he did not know. Payne went to the office and questioned Allard who told
Payne he could not use him any more and that he was laid off. Payne asked
if his union activities had anything to do with his being laid off. Allard did not
reply. After getting his pay, Payne returned to get his tools and took them
to L'Ecuyer to be checked, and again asked L'E^uyer why he was laid off.
L'Ecuyer again said he did not know, but he went to the tool crib with Payne
* Lesmerises had been requested to but had not signed Payne's list. The others had
signed it.
' Because there was no representative of an appropriate union in town , they talked with
George Fecteau , Regional Director of the United Shoeworkers of America , C. I. 0.
6 Henry L. Hebert, president of the Respondent , came into the room while Camf was there
and participated in questioning Camf . Lesmerises , who was called as a witness for the
Respondent , testified that he was called to Allard 's office about a week after seeing Fecteau
and was asked how he felt about the Union and about his meeting with Fecteau. Allard
gave no testimony about the questioning of Camf, Marquis , or Lesmerises about the visit
to Fecteau . No evidence was produced to show with certainty how Allard knew of that
trip.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
while the latter turned in his tool checks and, when Payne persisted in seeking
a reason for his termination , L'Ecuyer indicated that if Payne had not been
fooling around with the Union he would still be working!
About noon on Thursday , April 12, 1945, Allard assembled the employees in
the shop and told them that he knew they were trying to get the C. I. O. into
the shop and that he wanted to hold a vote to see whether the employees wanted
it. He then passed out prepared , typewritten ballots ,' which, after being marked
by the employees , were collected in an open box and were counted by Marquis,
Camf, and Foreman John Drescher. The vote, 28 to 18 in favor of the Union,
was then announced to the reassembled employees by Allard, who said, "Let's be
good losers ; let's be good sports ; let 's back it up 100 percent."
Toward the end of the work day on April 12 following the election, Allard
called the supervisors together in a meeting and told them that he did not want
the CIO in the plant, that he would rather sell the plant than to have the Union
in the plant controlling its activities, and that he would rather throw the $12,000
he had spent on the incentive plan out the window than have the incentive plan at
the time the Union was taking over.
On the morning of Friday, April 13, 1945, employees Origenes Fortier, Russell
Roy ° and Donald Beaudet 10 canvassed the employees in the shop during working
hours to influence them to sign a paper against the Union or in favor of a shop
union. Employee William Dupuis, by agreement with the three foregoing em-
ployees, was stationed in the tool crib with a sheet of paper. When the canvassers
found someone who was willing to sign, they sent him to the tool crib to see
Dupuis." Although supervisors were aware of such activities, they took no steps
to stop them until the canvassers had nearly completed their canvassing. In
contrast to this, two employees, Houle and Provost, were told by supervisors that
same day not to leave their machines.
Fortier approached employee Stephen Chakas among the last of those he
canvassed, told him not to join the Union, and, if he was in it, to get out. This
precipitated a noisy argument in which, according to Chakas, Fortier "got tough."
Camf, who worked near Chakas, told Fortier to go back to his machine, that he
had no business getting the employees to sign out of the Union, and that if he
did not quit he would get into trouble. A few minutes after this incident, Fore-
man Wilfred Gagnon,12 who had been laughing at the argument between Chakas
and Fortier, went to the office, and, returning shortly thereafter, told Camf he
4 Another employee, Felix LaChance, was laid off the same day On April 16, 1945, a
charge was filed by the Union alleging the discharge of Payne and a Felix Deschamps to be
violations of the Act LaChance refused an offer of reinstatement in April 1945 At the
hearing the Respondent conceded that Payne was discharged iathei than laid off
8 The ballots asked if the employees wanted the "C. I. 0 , yes or no." Camf objected to
the "C. I 0 " on the ballot as they had not yet determined what union to join. Allard
thereupon said to ignore it. It is not certain whether, after that statement , the voters
understood the vote to be for just a union or for the C I. 0
° Board's counsel contended that Roy was a foreman The undersigned finds that Roy's
position at this time was not a supervisory one within the Board ' s definition
10 Beaudet was a truck drn er who occasionally, but not customarily , did some painting
in the shop. It does not appear that Beaudet had any duties in the shop on this day.
Fortier and Roy were operators
"Allard was observed by Camf and Marquis at the tool crib while Dupuis was there
12 Gagnon testified that he was not a foreman but a leadman in April 1945 . The under-
signed finds that the designation " leadman" was not used in 1945 But whatever his title,
Gagnon did no work in production unless he felt like it, made decisions , and gave directions
assigning operators to machines , reported directly to the superintendent , and attended
foremen 's meetings . He is found to be a supervisor within the Board's definition.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 89
was all through, to go to the office and draw his pay, and that Allard would
explain.
In his office Allard talked with Camf for about an hour and sought to induce
Camf to convince the employees that they should have an inside union. Camf
finally agreed with Allard to the selection of a committee to participate in
further discussion. The committee, as agreed upon, consisted of Camf, Mar-
quis (proponents of the Union), Dupuis (who had participated in the anti-union
activities of that morning), Adrian Brodeur (a neutral at that time)," and
Head Inspector Charles Thorp.14 Canif went and got these men, and Allard
talked to them about the incentive plan and unions. Among other things, Allard
expressed himself as opposed to the C. I. 0. He said that he would approve the
A. F. of L, but that he preferred a shop union, and that he would get them a
charter and back a shop union with money. He believed that the employees
did not understand the incentive plan, and he asked the committee's permission
to call the employees in to explain to them the incentive system and a shop union.
The committee said it had no objection, but believed the men had already made
up their minds. Allard said that that there was going to be a union meeting
that night and that they should not sign up with the C. I. 0., that they should
think it over and not act before they knew what they were doing.16 Before the
committee left, Allard told them that they could go out and change the employees'
minds and get them to agree on a shop union. Camf, not wishing to influence the
men, said lie was going home. Allard stopped him and said that Camf was one
of his key men whom he needed there. Camf, nevertheless, left and did not re-
turn until later that day 16
Following this meeting, that afternoon, Allard called the employees to his
office in groups 11 He talked to them about the incentive plan, questioned them
about their union views, and urged them to form a shop union. He told them
that, if the C. I. 0. came into the shop, business would fall off and there would
have to be lay-offs, that he would not go out to get new orders and would close
the shop down, that he had his tool box and would go out and get a job, that
they would he better off with a shop union, that, if they would form a shop
union, he could do more for them, that he would help them form a shop union,
and that they should go to the union meeting that night but not sign up 18
At the union meeting that night a number of the employees signed cards for the
Union.
13 Brodeur later joined the Union.
14 At that time Thorp was a part of management and had attended the foremen's meeting
of the night before. Beaudet testified that, when he was canvassing employees, Superin-
tendent L'Ecuyer told him to stop going around but that he did not completely stop until
Thorp spoke to him.
15 The evidence is not clear as to how Allard learned that there was to be a union meet-
ing, although Camf may have mentioned it during the course of his discussion with Allard.
Chakas testified that Allard asked his group if there was going to be a union meeting, but
he did not testify that the question was answered.
16 Camf did not work again that day, nor thereafter until the Respondent entered into a
Board-approved settlement agreement with the Union By this agreement, Camf was rein-
stated on April 23, 1945, and Payne was reinstated on April 26. Other employees laid off
since April 11 were to be reinstated by April 30.
11 Some of the employees testified that they were called in on April 12, but the under-
signed infers from all the evidence that they were confused as to the date
13 These findings are taken from the testimony of a number of the employees and, since
all did not testify to the same things, it is likely that each statement was not made to
each group that was called in.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At noon that same day, employees Maurice Houle and Edward Marchut left
the plant and did not return and were apparently not among those who went to
Allard's office.1° Marchut failed to punch his time card on leaving, and, although
Houle punched out and did not return, his card was in some manner punched in
for the afternoon. When Houle and Marchut reported for work on Monday,
April 16, the next working day, they were discharged for being absent the
previous Friday afternoon. Marchut, who was a veteran, was reinstated prior
to April 20 following intervention of the Veterans Bureau and Marchut's promise
to Allard not to fail to punch out thereafter. Houle was reinstated on April 30
as a result of an agreement between the Respondent and the Union.
On April 16, in accordance with a notice posted by the Respondent, the working
hours, which had been from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m. with a half hour for dinner at noon
on a 5-day week were changed to 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. with an hour for dinner
and 4 hours on Saturday morning. By the same notice the employees were told
that under the insurance underwriters rule 2° the Respondent was enforcing
the no-smoking rule.21 Despite the change in hours, some of the non-union
employees were allowed to continue working from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m., and during
the periods from 7 to 8 a. m. and 5 to 6 p. m., those employees were permitted to
smoke.
On an unfixed date after April 12, Allard called three of the lathe operators
to his office, told them that they were the three best men on lathes, that he
noticed a decrease in their production, and asked if it was because of unsatisfac-
tory pay or if they were trying to buck him because he was opposed to the
Union. They replied that they were slower because of the difficult nature of the
job they were on. Allard said they were not doing right by having a union and
that he would close the shop rather than have a union 22 He said he had quite a
little money and would just as soon close the shop, and that he could always go
back to music playing."
On April 20, Allard visited the Board's Regional Office, explained that the lay-
offs preceding that date were made because of lack of work, but indicated it
was a temporary condition and that a prospective order might permit reem-
ployment,24 and agreed to a cross-check of the Union's membership cards to
determine whether the Union represented a majority of the Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit. As a result, a cross-check was conducted
on April 24, the result of which showed 29 designations of 55 employees in
the unit 15
1° Houle was one of those who signed a union card that evening . Marchut was a union
proponent and became a member of the union negotiating committee.
20 The Respondent received a letter dated April 13, 1945, from the Insurance Depart-
ment, States War Inspection Service of the State of New Hampshire , requesting curtail-
ment of smoking in the Respondent ' s plant.
21 The change in rules is not found per se to constitute a violation of the Act. Only
the disparity of the application of the rules is so regarded.
21 On one occasion when Brodeur was in Allard 's office, Allard said the Union was just
a racket and that the dues were used by higher -ups for a life of leisure.
23 Allard had played in an orchestra and held an A. F. M. card.
24 As previously stated, a settlement agreement , settling the charge filed on April 16,
was signed on April 23. Camf was reinstated on April 23; Payne, April 26; Marquis,
who had been laid off on April 17, was reinstated on April 28; Marchut had already been
reinstated , and LaChance had been offered and had refused reinstatement . Houle was
reinstated on April 30.
2a Although Allard testified that he was satisfied with the result of the cross -check, he
had an attorney petition for reconsideration thereof on July 14, 1945. Ultimately, on
January 7, 1946, a contract was signed by the Respondent and the Union.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 91
Between April 23 and May 4, members of the union negotiating committee,
consisting of Camf, Payne, Marquis and Marchut, accompanied by one or two
representatives of the Union, met with Allard a number of times, and a few
discussions took place between Allard and Camf alone. During one or more of
such meetings Allard made the following statements : that the C. I. O. organizers
were a bunch of gangsters ; that the dues money would go out of the State ; that
the money would be used by the organizers to live an easy life ; that he had spent
$12,000 on the incentive plan, and that if the CIO came in, the incentive plan would
go out the window.20
At one conference Allard stated that he was going to have to lay some employees
off because of cut-backs on orders. The Union requested a seniority list and,
when Allard prepared it, he and Camf went over it and agreed on two employees
of low seniority as proper to be laid off.27 Both were laid off on April 30.
During the noon dinner hour one day between April 30, when Houle was
reinstated, and May 4, 1945, when he was again laid off, Gagnon approached
Lim on the platform outside the shop and said that the Union would never get
in because Allard would not allow it and that if Houle had connections with the
Union he would not be working there long.
B. The discriminatory lay-offs
1. The facts
Between 10 and 10: 30 a. in. on May 4, 1945, without advance notice, 10 em-
ployees, members of the Union, were laid off. They were : Payne, Camf, Marquis,
Houle, Chakas, Forrest Ames, Leo Dionne, Richard LaBelle, Lindsay McKee,
Ernest Poirier 28 Superintendent L'Ecuyer started at one end of the shop and
Foreman Drescher at the other, designated the foregoing employees, and told
them they were "all done" or "all through" or "laid off." Some of them asked
for an explanation and were told they would learn the reason in the office. As
they were starting toward the office, Gagnon said, "There goes the Union gang."
The men laid off gathered in the corridor leading to the office while waiting for
their pay-checks. Camf and Marquis went into the office and asked Allard for
an explanation of the mass termination. Allard gave them no reason but told
them that they would find out at the U. S. E. S.
While the laid-off employees were still standing in the corridor, Production
Supervisor Stanton Hewitt went into the shop and noticed Ames in the group
in the corridor. Ames had been serving Hewitt as a stock-chaser, but Hewitt did
not know of Ames' lay-off until he saw him in the corridor. Hewitt went into
Allard's office and asked why Ames was laid off. Allard replied that he wanted
to make a clean sweep of the union agitators. While Hewitt was there, someone
entered Allard's room and told Allard that the laid-off men were talking of
going to Leighton Machine Company to get jobs.29 Allard turned to the tele-
26 Contrary to the contention of the Board's attorney, the undersigned finds that this
last statement did not constitute a threat to withhold benefits. It is interpreted to mean
that Allard felt his $12,000 would be wasted because he believed the Union would oppose the
incentive system.
27 The two were Walter Parenteau, hired April 2, 1945, and Fay Johnson, last hired on
March 2, 1945. Both were classified as burrers. A turret lathe operator, Roger St. Gelais,
hired on March 28, 1944, was also laid off on April 30. Four or five others were terminated
or quit between April 10 and 28.
28 Poirier, a sweeper, was not named in the complaint. He was reemployed on June 21.
29 Some of the men had been talking in the corridor about working elsewhere and specifi-
cally about getting jobs at Leighton Machine Company.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
phone, made a call to a person he addressed as Monty, and told the party on
the telephone that he had just laid more men off because they were union agita-
tors, that he had heard that they were going "over to your place" to get jobs
and that "I would not hire them if I were you." 30
The laid-off employees made a stop to see Fecteau and then went to the U. S.
E. S. There they told the party who interviewed them that they did not know
the reason for their discharge but apparently indicated that their union activities
may have been the cause The local manager of that office telephoned Allard,
told him some of the men from his plant were in his office, that they claimed
there was labor trouble, and asked if it was so. Allard denied it and said they
were laid off for lack of work.
Of those laid off on May 4, 1945, and who were named in the complaint, Ames
and Marquis were the only ones thereafter to be offered employment by the
Respondent. Sometime during the summer of 1945, Allard called for Ames
through the U. S. E. S. and was notified by them that Ames had another job and
did not wish to return. The evidence does not disclose what kind of work was
offered to Ames but the undersigned infers that it was not stock chasing, his
former work. On the afternoon of May 4, 1945, when Marquis returned to the
plant to get his pay, he was asked if he would be willing to come in for a few
hours a week. He refused to return except on a full-time basis.
2. The contentions of the parties respective to the lay-offs
The Respondent's contention is that cut-backs in contract work necessitated
discharge or lay-off of employees and that the selection of men for discharge or
lay-off was determined on a basis of efficiency of employees. The Board contends
that there was sufficient work for all the men and that they were selected not
because of inefficiency but because of their union membership and activities.
3. Evidence as to the amount of work available
The amount of potential and existing work on May 4, 1945, is difficult to de-
termine accurately " Testimony of employees laid off on that date and of Hewitt,
production supervisor at that time, was that there was no lack of work. Orders
and cut-backs introduced in evidence tend to show that, while there were no sub-
stantial cancellations or cut-backs in April," the dollar value of new orders in
March and April was substantially less than during the preceding months. But
since deliveries of goods manufactured followed order dates by as much as 3
months or more,' the smaller amount of new business might not have been
30 This finding is based upon Hewitt's testimony. Hewitt impressed the undersigned as
an exceptionally earnest and conscientious witness. He testified that Allard called the
Leighton Machine Co. telephone number
Si Allard, Hewitt, and others testified that the Respondent was doing work under an
order from Davis and Furber, and Submarine Signal Company. Hewitt testified that the
order fiom Submarine Signal Company was a large one No orders from either company
were included among the written orders introduced in evidence, although all written orders
were supposed to be in evidence. Thus, there is no evidence as to their relative size or the
date of their placement
33 A substantial reduction in a January order occurred on May 11.
33 There was testimony that work was being done for Lombard Governor Co on May 4 A
December 1944 order placed by that company was completed on May 15, 1945. Two mod-
erate-size new oiders from Lombard were placed on May 4 Hewitt testified that on May
4, the Respondent had work on an order from Plymouth Machine Company. This order
was placed in January and February 1945. The cut-back on May 11 of the Bigelow-San.
ford order , which originally had been placed in January 1945, indicates that work had not
been completed on it by May.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 93
reflected in the work load until June or July. It is not improbable that Allard
had sought no new orders because there was already enough work on hand.
Delivery dates in evidence show that deliveries were being made throughout the
period of May to July on orders placed in the period from December 1944 to
May 1945.
After the May 4 lay-offs, Allard telephoned Lombard Governor Company, for
whom the Respondent was doing work, and said that he had had union trouble,
that he wished they would play along with him, and that he was not going to be
able to put out the work he did before for lack of labor.4
4. The Respondent's selection of employees for the May 4 lay-off
Allard testified that he made the selection of employees for the May 4 lay-off
after talking over with Superintendent L'Ecuyer the individual men and taking
into account the kind of work they were on, whether they could be shifted
to another machine, and their past performance. He also testified that he relied
upon L'Ecuyer ' s appraisal of the men and what Hewitt had mentioned about
some of the men.
The qualifications of the men selected for lay-off in fact ranged from very
good to poor. So far as the record reveals it, the following is a brief sketch
concerning the men laid off:
a. Forrest Ames
Ames was hired on March 16, 1944. He was trained by Beaudet, the truck
driver and painter, to snag and paint castings" From about February 1945 on,
Ames was used by Hewitt as a stock chaser" A few days before Ames was laid
off, Allard called him to his office and asked him, according to Hewitt, if he were a
member of the Union.
b. George Camf
Camf was hired on January 11, 1943. He was first used on a lapping
machine and later on drilling. From drilling he went to the inspection depart-
ment. In the spring of 1944 he went into the assembly department and in July
of that year, when the foreman of that department went into the service, Camf
was made foreman. In March 1945, Camf asked Allard to be relieved of his
foremanship. Camf said that if he was not relieved of his foremanship, he in-
tended to return to painting (his trade prior to his employment at the Respond-
ent's plant). Allard offered Camf a choice of a grinding job, assembly work
as an operator , or a job on a small lathe. Camf chose the latter, and from
that time until April 13 he operated a small lathe. Camf was one of the organi-
zers, active proponents of the Union, and a member of the bargaining and griev-
ance committee.
3 Later, a large quantity of bar stock was returned to Lombard at Lombard's request.
The evidence does not disclose the reason for Lombard's request. The stock returned could
have provided 2 or 3 months' work Stock was also returned to Davis and Furber
15 On one of the lists of employees furnished by the Respondent to Board's counsel, Ames
is classified as "Maintenance and spray painter," on another as painter and stock chaser.
i In mid-summer of 1945 Allard called for Ames through the U S E. S. when he had
"a few castings come in." Ames declined. Since Ames ' work after February 1945 is found
to have been principally stock-chasing , it is found that an offer of work snagging and paint-
ing castings would not be an offer of reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 13 Gagnon discharged Camf as previously related 3T When Camf was
reinstated on April 23 he was not put on a small lathe again. He was put by
himself in a small caged area, which had formerly been used as a carpenter
shop, sanding washers. A few days later he was put back in the assembly
department as an operator, remaining there until the mass lay-off of May 4.
Hewitt testified that Camf turned out high quality work, that he was medium
slow, and a little fussy.
Allard's shifting and at times self-contradictory testimony, considered with
all the evidence, makes it clear that Camf was laid off on May 4 because of his
union activities. Allard testified that Camf "wasn't a bad worker" on assem-
bly, that, as a matter of fact, he was so good that he was made foreman, that
Camf had also been an efficient workman at burring and sanding, and that he
had been made foreman of burring at one time. Allard also testified that
there was work available in assembling on May 4 and that all employees in
that department were retained. Yet he testified that Camf was released on
May 4 for lack of work. Later in his testimony, however, Allard said that he
did not keep Camf because the latter had said on April 13 that he wanted to
return to painting and forget all about machine work 38 The undersigned does
not credit either reason given for Camf's lay-off. There was enough work in
the assembling department to have retained Camf and, obviously, if Camf had
preferred painting to machine shop work, he would not have returned on April
23 and performed the less desirable jobs assigned to him. Instead of retain-
ing Camf, the Respondent retained less experienced men. Of those retained in
the assembly department only the foreman had greater seniority than Camf.
One employee retained in that department had been with the Respondent for
less than 2 months.
When the Board's Field Examiner was investigating the charges in this case,
she requested the Respondent to furnish information on the efficiency of Camf
among others. Allard requested Hewitt to get the information. Because Camf
had been a foreman when the work cards first came into use, there was little
information on Camf's performance. Hewitt found only a few cards of Camf's
operation on the lathe and the polishing or sanding job. Hewitt took the cards
to Allard and told him they were the only records he could find on Camf but
that he could not use them because the figures on the polishing job cards looked
as though they had been tampered with 88 and that there were no comparative data
on the lathe job. Allard told him to get a print of the lathe job and have a time
study made, but Hewitt was unable to find a print and so reported. Allard told
him to make a time study anyway. Hewitt replied that it was impossible to
make a time study without a print. Allard told him that he did not see why
he could not make one, that Hewitt was hired to make time studies and that he
could make it look unfavorable.40
$T Although Allard, that day, told Camf he was one of his key men who could get the
employees to change their minds and that he wanted Camf to stay, the undersigned finds
that Camf was given to understand that he would not be discharged if he would aid Allard
in stopping the union movement This is not a proper condition to be attached to Camf's
employment . The undersigned therefore finds that Camf's discharge on April 13 was a
violation of the Act.
as Later Allard admitted that Camf might have spoken about returning to painting at the
time he asked to be relieved of his foremanship.
ao The quantity of pieces finished, according to Camf's card, appeared to have been greatly
reduced, while that on the card of one Brassard whose work was going to be compared with
Camf's appeared to have been raised. There was testimony that Brassard was one of the
slowest workers. Hewitt testified that Camf had been very fast on the sanding job.
40 As a result of this incident, Hewitt resigned.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 95
c. Stephen Chakas
Chakas, a former shoe worker, was hired on November 9, 1943. He served
about a year as a drill press operator, and then as burrer, polisher, and lathe
operator." He was inexperienced on the lathe, as he had been on it only a
short time before his lay-off on May 4, and consequently he was slower than
experienced men. It was the argument between Fortier and Chakas which led
to Camf's discharge on May 4.
d. Leo Dionne
Dionne was hired on February 23, 1942." Except for a short time spent on
burring, Dionne operated a lathe for the full time of his employment. Such
scant evidence as was offered of Dionne's speed indicates that he was not one
of the faster operators. No data were offered to show the comparative quality of
work the operators performed.
e. Maurice Houle
Houle was hired on February 3, 1944, and was classed as a miller operator,
although he also operated other machines." He had had trade-school training
at the University of New Hampshire and 3 years' experience with another com-
pany before coming to the Respondent. He was one of the few in the shop who
could make tools, and he was one of the two horizontal miller operators. He was
apparently given little supervision and was a good enough machinist to get
special jobs assigned to him.
As previously related, Houle, an active union member, one of three employees
named by Allard as having objected to the incentive plan, was discharged
on April 16 because his time card was punched in for the afternoon of Friday,
April 13," although he had left at noon and had not returned. His reinstate-
ment on April 30 followed the settlement agreement as heretofore related.46
Allard testified that Houle was released on May 4 for lack of work, that Houle
had been a miller on April 13 and prior to that had been a driller, that production
drilling had run out, that he had observed Houle's work before April 13 and
after April 30, that on the first day after his return Houle had been a little
below standard, and that he got progressively worse until the fourth day, when
he had almost tripled his time.
Horizontal milling work in 1945 was "off and on" Allard testified. From June
on, however, a horizontal miller operator who could make tools could have done
jig boring.
Houle's work cards for the periods of April 9 to 13 and April 30 to May 4 (con-
tradicting Allard's testimony that there was no more drilling) show that he
41 He was given the lathe job as a result of his request for a better job
"This made him fifth in seniority of the non-supervisory employees in the plant as of
April 30, 1945.
48 Houle testified that he could operate a lathe, milling machine, grinder, drill press,
radial drill, planer and shaper but that he could not operate a turret lathe.
44 It was on this day, when Fortier and others were soliciting signatures of opponents
of the Union, that Foreman Drescher told Houle not to leave his machine. Houle denied
that he had punched in that afternoon. There would have been no irregularity if Houle's
card had been punched out at noon but not in again. Houle's discharge at this time has
the appearance of being unusually harsh.
' During a conference between Allard, Jack Hurvitz, a representative of the Union, and
members of the bargaining-grievance committee between April 16 and the date of the settle-
ment agreement, Allard made the statement that he would never take Payne and Houle
back.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was engaged in drilling and that his performance for May 3 and 4, contrary to
Allard's testimony, was very fast, while for the preceding 3 days, it was com-
paratively slow. Instead of his getting slower, therefore, he was speeding up.
No record of Houle's work on the milling machine is in evidence.
When Houle was laid off, the Respondent retained the only other horizontal
miller operator, William Glod 4e Glod was the only employee with whom the
Respondent had any appreciable absentee difficulty. Allard testified that this
trouble with Glod continued all the time Glod was employed there and that
the Respondent could never rely on his coming in the next morning.47
f. Richard LaBelle
LaBelle was employed on May 24, 1944, and he was classed as a vertical
miller operator. Prior to working for the Respondent he had been a shoe worker.
There are no work cards of LaBelle in evidence from which his efficiency could
be determined.
The evidence is conflicting on the availability of work on the vertical miller
machines. On direct examination Allard testified that there was no more work
on such machines on May 4, 1945. On examination by the undersigned, Allard
testified that the Respondent had production runs on the vertical milling ma-
chines for the first 6 months or so in 1945. Two vertical miller operators were
retained in the Respondent's employ on May 4.48
g. Laurier Marquis
Marquis was hired on January 4, 1943, as a grinder operator. In the spring
of 1944 he requested his release to take a higher paying job in another city, but
Allard prevailed upon Marquis to stay by convincing him that his job with the
Respondent would continue after the war.
Marquis was one of the employees named by Allard as being opposed to the
incentive system, and he was one of those questioned by Allard about the visit
to Fecteau to start organization of the Union. He was on the bargaining-
grievance committee.
Marquis did not work from April 17 to April 30, 1945, except for 1.2 hours
on Saturday, April 28. Allard testified that he told Marquis in April that there
was not enough grinding to keep him going full time, that he offered Marquis
part-time work, and that Marquis said he wanted to do some painting.49
Marquis' time cards show that he worked full time from May 1 to 4 until
he was laid off. On the morning of Friday, May 4, at about 9 o'clock, Super-
intendent L'Ecuyer asked Marquis if he had enough work to keep himself busy
that day. Marquis replied that he had, and L'Ecuyer said he was glad to hear
it because they had a special job coming up and did not want to see him "break
up" before it came in. Yet at 10 or 10: 30 a. in., that morning, although he
had work ahead at the time, he was laid off along with the others.
46 Whereas Glod had been classified as a miller operator on the exhibit showing the names
of employees on the pay roll from January 1, 1942, to May 4, 1945, he was shown on the
exhibit of employees who continued to work beyond May 4, as an engine lathe operator.
97 Allard testified that he was influenced in giving Glod employment by sympathy for
Glod's wife and child . Glod 's efficiency could not fairly be determined from the work
cards in evidence . The only available card showed his time on drilling to be slower than
standard.
,s Both had greater seniority than LaBelle . Camf testified that on May 4, 1945, LaBelle
was in the assembly department with him. LaBelle did not testify.
49 Marquis had been a painter before his employment with the Respondent.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 97
Allard testified that after May 4 until September the Respondent had no full
time grinder and that no one operated the grinding machine more than 3 or 4
hours a week . Work cards of all the employees for April and May on the few
operations which formed the basis for Hewitt 's comparative performance chart
are in evidence , but Marquis ' work cards for the week ending May 6 are not
among them . From this , the undersigned concludes that he was working on one
or more other jobs for which no work cards were produced . The cards in evidence,
those on job number J 161, show that 58 hours ' grinding on that one job alone
was performed by two operators during the rest of May after Marquis' lay-off.
No one was hired specifically for grinding work, however , until September 10,
1945, when a new nian was hired.
Allard gave testimony concerning poor work clone on a close tolerance grinding
job in 1944 and attributed most of it to Marquis . He claimed he always had
trouble with Marquis' keeping close tolerances . The undersigned finds , however,
that Marquis did very little work on this job and that no complaints had ever
been made to him.
h. Lindsay McKee
McKee, whose only prior experience was in forestry, was hired by the Re-
spondent on May 8, 1944. He did hand-chisel and polishing work on a part
designated as a knob for submarine assembly and also worked in assembling.
Camf, under whose supervision McKee had worked on these jobs before Camf
gave up his foremanship, testified that McKee was the best man on the chiseling
and polishing job and that on assembly work he was faster and better than any
other roan in the shop. On direct examination, Allard testified that there was
not much for McKee to do on May 4. On cross-examination he testified that
McKee was the only nian on the knob handle work for submarine assembly, and
on examination by the undersigned he testified that there was more of such work
to be done after May 4 but that anyone could do it.
i. Howard Payne
Payne was first employed by the Respondent in August 1942 for about 2 months.
He was found satisfactory, and, when he left, Allard gave him a letter of recom-
mendation which described Payne as a "capable and efficient workman." Ile was
again employed on March 15, 1944, as a general machinist and was placed on a
small lathe at first.
About January 1945 Foreman Gagnon saw Payne with his eyes closed and
believed him to be asleep. Payne was called to Allard's office, where he denied
that he was asleep and claimed that his eyes were troubling him 50 As a conse-
quence, Payne was transferred to a radial drill and later to an engine lathe.
It has already been related how Payne signed up employees favoring a union,
visited Fecteau on April 7, and was discharged on April 11. At a meeting between
Allard and union representatives after Payne's discharge and before his rein-
statement, Allard accused Payne of high-pressuring the employees to sign union
cards and later referred to Payne as a troublemaker, and said that Payne would
never be rehired. Payne was reinstated on April 26, only to be laid off again
on May 4.
5 President Hebert testified that he recommended discharging Payne at this time, but
Hewitt and L'Ecuyer told him of Payne ' s eye trouble and thought it best to try him in
another department.
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From all the evidence the undersigned deduces that Payne was a competent
and experienced machinist but slower than a number of other experienced men.
The undersigned is not convinced that he was the slowest." No evidence was
offered of the comparative quality of his work with that of other operators.
Lesmerises testified that early in April he had asked Allard for a raise, that
Allard had said he could not give it, that he had asked Allard if the men who did
the work should not get paid more than the ones who did not and that Payne
was doing 3 pieces a day while he (Lesmerises) was doing 14. Allard testified
that Lesmerises told him Payne had boasted of doing only 4 pieces and that Payne
had called him a sucker for doing 13. While Lesinerises got his raise, Allard
apparently did not speak to Payne about such an attitude nor did he discharge
him immediately. Payne denied that he had had such a conversation with Les-
merises as the one to which Allard testified, and the undersigned credits his
denial. The work card records in evidence indicate that while Payne was a little
slower on his operation during the first week in April than was Lesmerises on
the same operation, there was not such a great difference as Lesmerises made
out 01
Although Allard testified that Payne was discharged on April 11 because of an
accumulation of incidents, the timing of Payne's discharge with relation to the
time Allard discovered I'ayne's union activities make it obvious that it was the
latter that prompted Payne's discharge. And Allard's statement thereafter that
Payne was a troublemaker also obviously referred to Payne's efforts to organize
the Union.
5. Conclusions respecting the May 4 lay-offs
A study of all the evidence leads the undersigned to the conclusion that the
press of work may have lightened to some extent in April in some types of opera-
tions, and some lay-offs in April may have been justified ca But neither the actual
nor prospective volume of work justified the mass lay-off on May 4" In mid-
April, Allard informed the Board's attorney that the necessity for lay-offs was due
to a temporary condition, that he expected an order which would enable him to
"' George Brassard, one of the slowest lathe operators, was retained in employment after
May 4. No production records of Brassard's work on lathes were in evidence Brassard's
work record on the sander, following Camf, is not reliable as the work cards appear to have
been radically altered
52 Payne was working at a pace of about an hour and a quarter per piece to Lesmerises'
55 minutes per piece during the first week in April. Pavne's work after April 26 cannot
be fairly appraised because alterations in his work cards for such dates were not satis-
factorily explained One of Payne's cards was missing Other work cards of Lesmerises
in evidence are of no value since the cards failed to describe the operation he performed.
Work cards in evidence show that the speed of individual operators varied considerably
from one run to another For example, on one job. Lesmerises' average time per piece
varied from 376 hours on one card to 1 09 hours on another; Dupuis' from 090 to 80 ;
Fortier's from .036 to .140 A fair appraisal of an operator's work therefore could be
made only by having records of a great amount of that operator's work
ii An assembler and it bench lathe operator quit in the middle of April. Five burrers
and an apprentice were laid off or terminated between March 30 and April 30. A turret
lathe operator was laid off at the end of April.
64 In the spring of 1945 Allard consulted counsel Ni ith respect to making lay-offs and
was advised to "divorce from his mind . . any question of negotiations or labor repre
sentation and to treat the problem as an ordinary business proposition . . " If this
advice came after the Regional Director's Report on Cross Check of April 24 it was ill
advised Allard knew that the Union wished to negotiate on lay-offs and engaged in such
negotiations respecting the April 30 lay-offs But he did not notify the Union that he
was going to make the May 4 lay-offs Whatever the result might be if Allard had in
good faith followed the advice given by counsel, the undersigned finds that the May 4
lay-offs were not made in good faith.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 99
rehire men already laid off and keep them on, but that the expected order did not
materialize. Considering the backlog of unfilled orders in April and Allard's exag-
gerated testimony of the extent of March and April cut-backs, the undersigned
finds that Allard's statement to Board's counsel did not express the true condi-
tion of business at the time of the May 4 lay-offs. An examination of the records
in evidence reveals that all through May, June, and July, 1945 deliveries were
being made on orders placed in the period from December 1944 to May 4, 1945.
The number of new orders increased in May. The assembly department con-
tinued to work overtime in April and May, and the work in the shop generally
increased in volume in May and succeeding months."
After the May 4 lay-offs, Allard called the Lombard Governor Corp. and told
them that because of union trouble and lack of labor, the Respondent would not
be able to turn out the work it had before. In July, the work load had become
so heavy that the Respondent had to reject work.66 Some orders placed in June
were cancelled at the end of the War with no apparent work having been done
on them.
With the exception of Ames, none of the employees laid off on May 4 was
offered employment by the Respondent after it became rushed with work in June
and July 1945. No new employees were hired and no old ones were rehired.
It is incredible that a manufacturer, having no ulterior motive, would fail to make
an effort to rehire laid-off employees, or hire new ones when its business was so
heavy that it could not handle it with its reduced staff 67 The only reasonable
conclusion is that the Respondent failed to employ anyone in order to avoid rehir-
ing the union men who were laid off on May 4.
Even if business conditions had justified the lay-offs on May 4, the evidence
is convincing that Allard made his selection of men for the lay-off discriminatively
with reference to their union affiliations or activities rather than with reference
to impartial and reasonable standards. It is notable that, in one sweep, three
of the four union committee members were eliminated 5a
Little attention was given to seniority, even where experience and ability were
involved. For example, Camf and McKee, two good men in assembly work, of
which there was no lack, were laid off, while others of less experience were
retained. One man retained had been hired in March, less than 2 months before.
Although the Respondent had not yet contracted to follow seniority in laying
off employees, Allard had gotten up a seniority list at the request of the union
55 Whereas overtime work was reduced for some but not all employees on April 16, it
was generally restored a month or so later.
56 On July 25, the Respondent cancelled an $11 000 AA1 priority order from Gage Bros.
on which it had already commenced work because it was then "overloaded" with work.
Allard testified that this order was cancelled because of a "directive" from Raytheon, a
radar manufacturer for whom the Respondent was doing work, because of the press of work,
and because a credit report on Gage Bros was not too favorable However, the credit
report procured by the Respondent on Gage Bros was dated May 29, 1945, while the $11,000
order was dated June 2. Because of that, because the order was accepted and worked on
until the latter part of July, because the order apparently contemplated semi-monthly pay-
ments for deliveries made in that period (indicating that the Respondent would not be ex-
tending a full $11,000 credit all at one time) and because the Respondent accepted from
Gage Bros another order dated June 29 for $400 to $500, the undersigned finds that an
"unfavorable" credit report was not the motivating reason for cancellation of the June
2 order. Rather, it was an insufficient number of employees for the volume of work.
67 Cf. Matter of Industrial Metal Fabricators, Inc, 63 N L. It. B. 46, enforced in 15$ F.
(2d) 14.
0 As heretofore noted, Marchut. the other member of the committee, was a veteran. He
had been reinstated after his April discharge following intervention of the Veterans Bureau,
and he was not again laid off
817319--49-vol 80--S
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
committee and had followed it in making two of the earlier lay-offs. Despite the
absence of any fixed policy, however, seniority normally plays some part in a
fair and impartial evaluation of an employee's qualification, since long service
in itself is an indication that the employee has performed satisfactorily.
In the selection of 10 men for lay-off from a staff of 55 employees, of whom 29
had designated the Union as bargaining representative, one would expect that,
in the absence of a discriminative motive some nonunion men would have been
included. Yet all 10 men were union members. While in making a lay-off in which
other than union considerations formed the basis for selection, it is not impossible
that all those selected be union members, the improbability thereof is so strong
where only 29 of 55 are union members as to give rise to a presumption of dis-
criminative motive °B
Beyond this, however, is the background of Allard's prior discriminative dis-
charge of active union members, his unsuccessful efforts to arouse interest in an
independent union, his statement to Hewitt that he was going to make a clean
sweep of the union agitators, his statement after the lay-offs that he intended
to give lack of work as the reason for the lay-offs, the interruption of the work
in mid-morning on May 4 to lay off the union men,80 instead of letting each
individually run out of work before he was laid off or at least letting the men
scheduled to be laid off finish the day, and his recommendation to another employer
not to hire the men he was laying off because they were union agitators.
Considering the foregoing and the entire record in the case, the undersigned
is convinced that there was no need for the May 4 lay-off, but even assuming
that there was some economic cause for laying off more workers on May 4, the
Respondent made a discriminative selection of men for such lay-off.
The undersigned finds, therefore, that by laying off Forrest Ames, George
Camf, Stephen Chakas, Leo Dionne, Maurice Houle, Richard LaBelle, Laurier
Marquis, Lindsay McKee, and Howard Payne on May 4, 1945, because of their
union membership and activities, the Respondent has discriminated in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment and has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
C. Conclusions respecting interference, restraint, and coercion
From all the foregoing, the undersigned concludes and finds that the Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by questioning its employees con-
cerning their union membership, sympathies, and activities,G1 by discharging
Payne on April 11 and Camf on April 13,62 by encouraging organization of an
69 See Matter of F. W. Woolworth Company, 25 N. L. R. B 1362 at p. 1373, enforced as
modified, 121 F. (2d) 658; Matter of Harold W. Baker Co., 71 N. L. R. B 44; N. L. R. B. v.
Chicago Steel Foundry Company, 142 F. (2d) 306 at 308, Matter of Brown's Tie & Lumber
Company, 66 N. L. It. B. 637.
66 No satisfactory explanation of the reason for this precipitate action having been given
by the Respondent, the undersigned concludes that it was for the purpose of making an
example of the union men laid off, a purpose orally epitomized in Gagnon's statement,
"there goes the union gang "
61 See Matter of Wadesboro Full-Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Incorporated, 72 N. L. It. B.
185; N. L. R. B. v. Norfolk Southern Bus Corp., 159 F. (2d) 516, Matter of South Shore
Packing Corp., 73 N. L. R. B 1116.
6' Although there is some cause to believe that the April discharges of Marchut and
Houle were discriminations because of their union sympathies, the undersigned makes no
finding thereon.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 101
inside union with promises of assistance, by organizing or attempting to or-
ganize an opposition movement to the Union, by countenancing the efforts dur-
ing working time of anti-union employees to get other employees to sign against
an outside union, while confining unions' sympathizers to their machines, by
favoring non-union employees with overtime hours and pay while limiting union-
favoring employees to the newly reduced regular hours, by countenancing
smoking by such favored employees during their extra time while enforcing a
no-smoking rule during regular hours, by threatening to close the plant and to
refrain from getting new business, by making disparaging remarks about the
Union and its organizers, by threatening employees with loss of jobs, by making
the mass lay-off on May 4, 1945, and by seeking to prevent the employment else-
where of the laid-off employees.
Although the Respondent-conducted election was by secret ballot, the under-
signed finds that by conducting such election the Respondent nevertheless vio-
lated Section 8 (1) of the Act. If an employer were at liberty to assume juris-
diction of the conduct of union elections he could, by precipitating the holding of
an election when the union organization was scarcely started, frustrate further
organization by making it appear that an unfavorable result was decisive. While
there is no contention that Allard used the poll of employees to determine which
ones favored the Union, knowledge of extent of organization, as much as know-
ledge of proponents' identities, may be used to plan oppositional steps consti-
tuting interference in violation of the Act. Whatever Allard's purpose was, the
conducting of such an election under the circumstances of this case was per se
an interference with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.87
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to
constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY 84
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
undersigned is convinced and finds that the Respondent by the aforesaid con-
duct has displayed an attitude of opposition generally to the purposes of the Act.
The unfair labor practices heretofore found are persuasively related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. The danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past 65
Unless the order is coextensive with the threat, the preventive purpose of the
Act will be thwarted. In order, therefore, to make more effective the inter-
63 Matter of Parkside Hotel, 74 N L R. B. 809
64 The Respondent raised the issue of laches . It is found that there was no undue delay
in prosecuting this case. In any event, the doctrine of lathes does not apply to an agency
of the United States Government in proceedings which are an exercise of its public or
governmental function . Matter of Standard Oil Company of California , 61 N. L. R. B.
1251.
65 N. L . R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of the
unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, the under-
signed will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent on May 4, 1945, discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the nine employees named in
the complaint by laying them off and thereafter failing to offer them reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , the undersigned will
recommend that the Respondent offer the said nine men immediate and full
reinstatement each to his former or substantially equivalent position,88 without
prejudice to the seniority or other rights or privileges he may have enjoyed.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make said nine men whole
for any loss which they may have suffered by payment to each of a sum of money
equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from May 4, 1945,
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings f7 during said
period.
It will be further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as.
it alleges that the Respondent penalized employees for their attendance at union
meetings by taking away privileges previously enjoyed by them, prepared an
anti-union petition and/or withdrawal from the Union to be signed by em-
ployees on Respondent 's time and premises ,68 exerted pressure on employees to,
sign an anti-union petition and/or withdrawals from the Union prepared by the
Respondent, urged employees to vote against the Union at an election conceived
and supervised by the Respondent on its time and premises," and discontinued
a proposed incentive plan to punish its employees for selecting the Union as their
bargaining representative."
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 Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Forrest
Ames, George Camf, Stephen Chakas, Leo Dionne, Maurice Houle, Richard
88 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New Yoik, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch , 65 N L R B. 827
67 See Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-8.
68 The Respondent abetted employees in soliciting opponents of the Union, but there is
no evidence that the Respondent prepared a petition itself The participants in such
solicitation are found to be non-supervisory.
GB The Board 's case on preparation of withdrawal petitions and urging employees to
vote against the Union at the Respondent-conducted election was based on the supposed
supervisory status of Russell Roy The undersigned finds that he was not at that time a
supervisor within the Board's definition
70 Failure to urge the Union to join it in requesting the W L. B's approval of the wage
incentive plan after the Respondent had unsuccessfully sought such approval , is not, in
the absence of evidence of a union request for such a plan , regarded by the undersigned as
establishing that the Respondent was penalizing Its employees in view of the Respondent's
belief that the Union was opposed to such plan.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC . 103
'LaBelle, Laurier Marquis, Lindsay McKee, and Howard Payne, thereby dis-
-couraging membership in a labor organization , the Respondent 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 exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees
by allegedly penalizing employees for their attendance at union meetings by
taking away privileges previously enjoyed by them, or allegedly preparing an
anti-union petition and/or withdrawals for the Union to be signed by employees
on Respondent's time and premises, or allegedly exerting pressure on employees
to sign a Respondent-prepared anti-union petition and/or withdrawals from the
Union, or allegedly urging employees to vote against the Union at an election
-onceived and supervised by the Respondent on its time and premises, or allegedly
threatening to discontinue or discontinuing a proposed incentive plan to punish
its employees for selecting the Union as their bargaining representatives.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, the undersigned recommends that the Re-
spondent, Granite State Machine Company, Inc., of Manchester, New Hampshire,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America (CIO), or
any other labor organization of its employees, by laying off, discharging, or
otherwise discriminating against any of its employees because of their union
membership or activities;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America (CIO), or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer reinstatement to each of said nine men in the manner outlined in
the section entitled "The remedy" above ;
(b) Make each of said nine men whole by payment to each of a sum of money
computed in the manner described in the section entitled "The remedy" above ;
(c) Post immediately at its plant in Manchester, New Hampshire, copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the First Region (Boston, Massa-
chusetts), shall, after having been duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and thereafter be maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material ;
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachu-
setts), in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Inter-
mediate Report of what steps the Respondent leas taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from
the date of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the said recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to the matters
enumerated in paragraph 5 of the section entitled "Conclusions of Law" above.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington
25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any
party or counsel for the Board may. within the same period, file an original and
four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon
the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for
the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties
and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on the other
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by
Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board.
JAMES R. HEMINGWAY,
Trial Examiner.
Dated August 14, 1947.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (C. I. 0.),
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Forrest Ames Leo Dionne Laurier Marquis
George Cainf Maurice Houle Lindsay McKee
Stephen Chakas Richard LaBelle Howard Payne
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 105
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
GRANITE STATE MACHINE COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------------
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 accord-
ance 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
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.