Hoppes Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 853 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of HOPPES MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
Case No. 9-C-2203.Decided July 31, 1917
Mr. William 0. Murdock, for the Board.
Mr. John M. Cole, of Springfield , Ohio, for the respondent.
A1r. Austin L. Patton, of Springfield , Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Seymour Cohen, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 7, 1946, Trial Examiner William J. Scott 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the respondent, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the addition
hereinafter set forth.
The Trial Examiner found, as the respondent admits, that the re-
pondent°established a new job classification and granted a wage in-
crease to its employees on July 26, 1946, without notifying the Union
1 The letter referred to by the Trial Examiner as having been sent by the respondent to
the Board 's Regional Director for the Ninth Region , quoted in part in the Intermediate
Report , was dated September 27, 1945 , rather than September 27, 1946 , as erroneously
stated in the Intermediate Report. In addition we do not adopt so much of the Trial
Examiner ' s findings in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled , "Conclusions respect-
ing the refusal to bargain ," which states that the respondent "substantially admits" that
:it has not bargained with the Union in good faith.
74 N. L. R. B, No. 134.
1 853
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or consulting with it in advance. Although the Trial Examiner found
that such conduct was part of the respondent's entire course of con-
duct which violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, he made no finding with
respect to the legal consequences flowing from the job classification
and wage increase under Section 8 (5) of the Act. We find, as al-
leged in the complaint, that, by establishing the job classifica-
tion and granting the wage increase on July 26, 1946, without first
bargaining with respect thereto with the Union, as set forth above,
as well as by the other conduct which the Trial Examiner found to
constitute an unlawful refusal to bargain, the respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the Union in violation of Section 8 (5)
of the Act.2
ORDER
Upon 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 the respondent, Hoppes Manufacturing
Company, Springfield, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), as the exclusive representative of all its
employees excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and other
supervisory employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Au-
tomobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), as the exclusive representative of all its
employees, excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and other
supervisory employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms or conditions of employment, and, if an
9 See Great Southern Trucking Company V. N. L R B., 127 F (2d) 180 , 186 (C. C. A.
4), and cases cited therein.
HOPPES MANUFACTURING' COMPANY 855
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant in Springfield, Ohio, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies
of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the respondent, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. William 0. M rdock, for the Board
M . John D7 Cole, of Springfield, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Austin L. Patton, of Springfield, Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on September 23, 1946, by International Union
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO ), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board , by its Regional Director for the Ninth Region ( Cincin-
nati , Ohio), issued a complaint dated September ' 24, 1946 , against Hoppes Manu-
facturing Company, herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint , together with notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that all of the respondent 's employees excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, foremen, and other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate ,for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining ; ( 2) that at an election conducted on or atout
August 23, 1945, under the supervision of the Board's Regional Director for the
Ninth legion, a majority of the employees in the said unit , designated the
8 Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER"
and substituting in lieu thereof the words' "A DECISION AND ORDER" In the event
that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted
in the notice, before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words. "A DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING"
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; (3)
that at all times since August 23, 1945, the Union has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the said appropriate unit; (4) that from on or
about August 30, 1945, to date, the respondent has vilified, disparaged, and
expressed disapproval of the Union and has interrogated its employees concern-
ing their union activity and their reasons therefor and has urged, persuaded,
and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or
remaining members of, the Union and has threatened to close its plant if the
employees persisted in their membership and activities in behalf of the Union ;
(5) that since on or about September 24, 1945, and at various times thereafter
the respondent refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit and on the con-
trary the respondent has bargained directly and individually with its employees
in the aforesaid unit and has granted wage increases to employees in said unit
without consultation or negotiation with the Union. The respondent thereafter
filed its answer in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint but
denied that it had refused to bargain with the Union and that any of its acts
constituted an unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held, at Springfield, Ohio, on October 14
and 15, 1946, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and respondent were represented by coun-
sel and the Union by a representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded to all parties. At the close of the Board's case, the undersigned granted
a motion of counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof as to
dates and minor variances without objection At the close of the hearing the
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Ruling on the
motion was reserved. That motion is hereby denied. Only counsel for the Board
availed himself of the opportunity afforded all parties to present oral argument
before the undersigned. On October 18, 1946, the respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hoppes Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation, with its principal office
and place of business located in Springfield, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture
of feed water heaters. The respondent annually purchases raw materials valued
at approximately $35,000, about 30 percent of which is shipped to its plant in
Springfield from points outside the State of Ohio. Finished products are manu-
factured by the respondent, at its plant in Springfield, annually, valued at about
$100,000, of which approximately 95 percent is shipped from the plant to points
outside the State of Ohio. The respondent admits it is engaged in conimerce
within the meaning of the Act,
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization, admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
HOPPES MANUFACTURING COMPANY
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Pieliminai'y statement
857
From 1886 until his death in July 1945 John J. Hoppes was the respondent's
principal stock owner. There is no evidence of any union activity among re-
spondent's employees until about July 1945. As the result of a Consent Election
Agreement entered into August 9, 1945, an election was held on August 23, 1945,
in which the employees voted in favor of the Union. On or about August 27,
1945, the Hoppes' stock was purchased by H. E. Freeman and Dr. B A. Mayer,
and from then on the respondent has been controlled by these two men. Accord-
ing to the respondent's testimony which the undersigned credits, Freeman was
interested solely in protecting a loan of a bank of which he was the president
and Mayer wanted to acquire the plant building as a storehouse for another
business that he controlled and operated' It was their intention at the time
they made the purchase of Hoppes' stock to liquidate the assets of the respondent.
However, they decided to attempt to operate the respondent's business After
tentatively making this decision they learned for the first time of the election in
which the Union had been selected by the employees as their bargaining
representative.
The refusal to bargain collectively
1 The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the undersigned finds that all of
the respondent's employees excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of the Act:
2 Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, the respondent admits, and the undersigned finds that
at all times since August 23, 1945, the Union has been the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment s
3. The refusal to bargain
Approxiinatel,y ten days after the election a proposed contract was submitted
by the Union to Forrest R White, the respondent's secretary and general manager.
i Freeman is president of the Lagonda National Bank, Sprinifield, Ohio, and Mayer is
the principal owner of the Bundy Incubator Company. These concerns are not involved
in this case
2 In the Agreement for Consent Election executed August 9, 1945, and approved August
13, 1945, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region the parties agreed on the appropri-
ate unit as above set out.
3 The election was held under the supervision of the Board on August 23, 1945. The
Tally of Ballots showed that of approximately 11 eligible voters 10 cast valid votes, 10 for
the Union, none against. On August 23, 1945, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
found and determined that the Union was the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about September 24, 1945, Austin L Patton 4 endeavored by telephone to
arrange for a meeting between White and the Union's bargaining committee
According to Patton's testimony, which is credited by the undersigned, White
admitted to Patton that he had told the employees that they could not have the
Union in the plant, and that if they did have the Union in the plant, the plant
would close down. Patton told White that "if you will not bargain with them
[Union] I [Patton] will have to sign an unfair labor charge against you " White
replied, "That is wliat you will have to do "
Promptly thereafter the Union filed a charge against the respondent
On April 15, 1946, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the Union and
the respondent There were no attempts at bargaining negotiations between the
filing of the charge and the Settlement Agreement
On June 7, 1946, representatives of the Union 5 went to White's office for the
purpose of attempting to negotiate a contract ° White made little or no comment
concerning the Union's proposed contract until the question of wage uici ease was
reached when White then flatly stated that there could he no wage increase and
if that was to be the principal issue the negotiations might just as well cease.
After some discussion concerning the respondent's ability to meet the suggested
raise, Patton told White that the respondent was going to have to negotiate with
the Union and White informed the committee in effect that he would not deal
with outsiders It is clear and the undersigned finds that White refused to bar-
gain with the Union at this meeting. Upon leaving, Patton told'White that he
was going to recommend to the employees that they strike The employees were
waiting outside White's office They voted to strike on the following Monday.
However, instead of striking, the Union, on June 10, 1916, served a 30-day notice
on the respondent that the employees were going to strike
As a result of the strike notice being filed, Federal conciliators were assigned
to the case but their efforts were unsuccessful insofar as being able to have
bargaining negotiations resumed.
On July 26, 1946, the respondent put into effect a new classification and wage
increase among the employees without any consultation with or notice to the
Union
The respondent upon being advised that an amended charge had been filed,
sent a letter, dated September 27, 1946, to the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region, a part of said letter being as follows :
Since August 30th, it has been necessary to lay off three men and cut opera-
tions from fifty (50) to forty (40) hours per week due to lack of work We
now have but eight men in our factory. Orders on hand will not give em-
ployment to these eight men for more than thirty (30) days. We are, there-
fore, at the present time more concerned whether or not we will stay in
business and are not in position to enter contract wzth, the Union until a
survey of the market is completed to determine our possibilities. (Italics
supplied )
4 International repi esentative for the Union who was in charge of the organizational
activities for the Union.
6 Patton, Lewis, Dundon and Richardson.
° By a letter dated May 18, 1946, the respondent had specifically authorized White to
negotiate with the Union and a copy of this letter had been given to the Union.
HOPPES MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Conclusions respecting the refusal to bargann
859
The undersigned credits the testimony of Freeman and Mayer that they pur-
chased the Hoppes stock with the intention of liquidating the assets of the re-
spondent; that operation of the plant was continued as an experiment to deter-
mine if the business could be operated at a profit, and that it was uncertain
whether the respondent would continue to operate the plant. However, the under-
signed concludes and finds that these facts do not constitute a defense to a refusal
to bargain. The respondent substantially admits and the record clearly shows
that the respondent has not bargained with the Union in good faith since Freeman
and Mayer have had control The undersigned finds that when a representative
of the Union, attempted on or about September 24, 1945, to arrange a meeting for
the purpose of negotiating a contract he was informed in effect, by White, re-
spondent's secretary and general manager, that the Union would not be tolerated
in the plant and that if the Union came in the plant would be shut down. It is
further found that at the meeting on June 7, 1946, White stated he would not
bargain with outsiders, which was, in effect, an attempt on White's part to dictate
the peisonnel of the group selected by the employees to represent them z Also
that at this meeting White while objecting to the terms of the contract proposed
by the Union's iepiesentatives offered no counterproposals and made no effort to
leach any agreement and accordingly (lid not comply with the duty required of
the respondent under Section 8 (5) of the Acts The undersigned further finds
that since the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices subsequent to the
Settlement Agreement, that A, reernent is no defense to the violations committed
by the resp indent prior to its execution.'
From the foregoing and the entire record the undersigned finds that the re-
spondent on or about September 24, 1945, and at all times thereafter, has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees, in an appropriate unit, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment and other conditions of employment and has thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
A. Interfei epee, i est i aint , and coercion
The record shows that shortly after Freeman and Mayer purchased the Hoppes
stock, John Rapp, respondent's factory superintendent, in substance told different
employees that Mayer would not tolerate the Union and that the plant would be
closed down if the Union came in.
The iecord also shows that soon after Rapp made the aforesaid statements,
a meeting of employees was held in the plant at the instigation of White and at
this meeting, White, in substance, informed the employees that the factory was
now under a new management that would not deal with the Union. White also
told the employees, at this meeting, that the plant was too small a place to have
a union, that the Union would not be tolerated, and that if the employees would
drop the Union Mayer would go ahead and run the plant and treat everybody
all right
'Natter of Lindeman Power and Equipment Company, 11 N L. R B 868; Matter of
New Eia Die Company, 19 N. L R. B 227, Matter of Hancock Brick & Tile Company,
44 N L R B 920.
8 Matter of Athens Manufacturing Company, 69 N L R B. 605
ON L R B v Hawk it Buck Co, Inc, 120 F (2d) 903 (C. C A. 5) ; Matter of L. H.
Hainel Leather Co , 45 N L R B 760.
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent in its brief substantially admits these statements were made but
contends, arguendo, "Where a man buys a sick or ailing business with the inten-
tion of selling it out piece-meal, or for junk, it certainly cannot be said that he is
`coercing' the former employees of that business or committing an unfair labor
practice against them when he carries out that intention. To completely liquidate
that business and to say in advance that he is going to do so are among his un-
qualified legal rights. And such being his unqualified legal rights we cannot see
where he is anyway `coercing' his employees when he offers to recede from that
policy and to continue operating temporarily and experimentally for the benefit
of his employees, provided that those employees do not require him to recognize
a Union affiliation" [emphasis supplied]. The undersigned finds not merit in this
contention and concludes that the respondent's clear intention in threatening to
liquidate the plant was to coerce its employees into refraining from union activity.
On July 26, 1946, the respondent, as previously stated, without any consultation
with or notice to the Union, put into effect a new job classification and wage scale
that resulted in the employees receiving an increase in pay. The respondent con-
tends, in effect, in its brief that, under the existing circumstances the respondent
was justified into resorting to individual bargaining and cites the case of J. I. Case
Co. v. N. L. K. B., 321 U. S. 336. None of the circumstances mentioned in that
decision as justifying individual bargaining are applicable herein and the under-
signed finds that in view of the Union having been properly chosen to be the bar-
gaining representative for its employees, the respondent was under legal obligation
to bargain collectively only with the Union.
The undersigned concludes and finds from the foregoing acts and the entire
record that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
by seeking to dissuade its employees from joining the Union and by threatening
to close its plant if the Union carne in; and by refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union. It will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned infers and finds that the respondent
by the aforesaid conduct, has displayed an attitude of opposition generally to
the purposes of the Act. The undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor
practices heretofore found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor
practices proscribed by the Act and that danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past. Unless
the order is coextensive with the threat, the preventive purpose of the Act will be a
thwarted. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guar-
antees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
HOPPES MANUFACTURING COMPANY 861
effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the
respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 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 Automobile, Auciaft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 All of the respondent's employees, excluding office and clerical employees,
foremen, and other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, at all times material herein, constituted and
now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW-CIO), was on August 23, 1945, and at all
times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on and after September 24, 1945, to bargain with the Union,
the ie^-pondent, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section S (5) of the Act.
5. 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.
6. 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, the Hoppes Manufacturing Com-
pany, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO),
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit herein found to be
appropriate;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-,
tions, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union, United Auto.
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO),
as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the unit herein found to
be appropriate, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms or conditions of employment, and if an understanding is ieached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its plant in Springfield, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked "Appendix A " Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the respondent, be posted by respondent 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-
toma ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to insure that
said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
Steps the respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recoinniendat ions
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National.
Laboi Relations Iboard, 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 originat and four copies of it statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as 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 coun-'el
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.
WILLIAM J. SCOTT,
Trial Examiner.
Dated November 7, 1946
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 em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or
HOPPES MANUFACTURING COMPANY 863
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. All our em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other
labor organization
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All of our employees excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action.
HOPPES MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated--------------------- By ---------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
755420-48-vol. 74-56