O'Keefe and Merritt Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of O'KEEFE AND MERRITT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
CORPORATION, PIONrEia ELECTRIC COMPANY, A COPARTNERSHIP, AND
L. G. MITCHELL, W. J. O'KEEFE, MARION JENNS, LEWIS M. BOYLE,
ROBERT J. MERRITT, ROBERT J. MERRITT, JR., AND WILBUR G. DURANT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COPARTNERS D/B/A PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY
and UNITED STTELWORKERS OF AMERICA, STOVE DIVISION, LOCAL
1981, C. I. 0.
Case No. 01-C-P,753.-Decided October,04,1947
Mr. David Aaron, for the Board.
Mr. Cecil W. Collins, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondents.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 13, 1946, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the respondents had engaged in and Were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the CIO filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No exceptions were
filed by the respondents.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief of the CIO, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
' The power of the Board to issue a decision and order in a case such as the instant one
where the charging union has not complied with the filing requirements specified in
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was decided
by the Boaid in Hatter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 90. Decisioh
and Order dated October 24, 1947.
75 N L R. B., No. 14.
117
766972-48-vol. 75-9
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dations of the Trial Examiner with the additions hereinafter set
forth.2
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent corpora-
tion unlawfully discharged Richard A. Nevarez on May 10, 1946, and
thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his CIO membership
and activity. Although Personnel Manager Rotter twice told Nevarez
at the time of his discharge that he was merely being laid off because
the work had "slacked down" and that he would be recalled as soon
as the work "picked up," 3 Nevarez was never recalled despite the fact
that less than a month later he was told by Foreman Gattoni, who had
also been his foreman during the period of his employment by the re-
spondents, that there was a great deal of work to be done. Gattoni's
next statement to Nevarez, as found by the Trial Examiner, is also
significant :
Well, Richard, you know all you got to do is to change a
little bit and you can come back to work. If you were to stay
where you were in the first place, you would be working now.
[Italics supplied.]
Inasmuch as the record establishes, as the Trial Examiner found, that
the respondents sought through Personnel Manager Rotter and
through Collins, their labor relations advisor, to induce their em-
ployees to join the AFL and not the CIO by warning them that they
would receive no wage increases unless they joined the AFL and by
offering certain benefits for joining the latter organization, we agree
with the Trial Examiner's findings that by the words, "change a little
bit," Gattoni referred to a change of membership f rom the CIO to the
AFL. We further believe, and find, that by his statement to Nevarez
that, "If you were to stay where you were in the first place, you would
be working now," Gattoni indicated that had Nevarez not joined the
CIO, he would not have been initially discharged. Under the cir-
cumstances, we conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that Nevarez was
discharged and was not reinstated because of his membership in the
CIO.
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondents in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 by.interrogating them as
to their union affiliation by means of employment application forms
and by unlawfully inducing them to withdraw from the CIO and join
2 Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the Dial Examiner herein found were violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8
(a) (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
3 No criticism was made to Nevarez concerning his capacity to perfoum the job at the
time that-he was discharged His lack of ability was later urged by the respondents, as
an afterthought, as one of the factors motivating the discharge.
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 119
the AFL, as set forth in the Intermediate Report. In concluding that
the respondents interrogated their employees concerning their union
affiliation, we do not rely solely on the Trial Examiner's finding that
the respondents required such disclosure from Bernard Tobon on
January 28, 1946. In addition, there are in evidence two of the re-
spondent's completed employment-application forms, dated May 14,
1946, and May 27, 1946, respectively, which contain inquiries respect-
ing the applicant's union-membership status. It is clear, therefore,
and we find, that the respondents continued to interrogate their em-
ployees on this subject after April 22, 1946, the date specified in the
complaint as the date on and after which the respondents are alleged
to have committed such unfair labor practices.
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 corporation,
O'Keefe and Merritt Manufacturing Company, and the respondent
partnership, Pioneer Electric Company, and L. J. Mitchell, W. J.
O'Keefe, Marion Jenks, Lewis M. Boyle, Robert J. Merritt, Robert J.
Merritt, Jr., and Wilbur G. Durant, individually and as copartners,
doing business as Pioneer Electric Company, all of Los Angeles,
California, and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
Stove Division, Local 1981, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization
of their employees, by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or
refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of
America, Stove Division, Local 1981, C. I. 0., 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, as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) In the event that the respondent corporation has failed to
reinstate Richard A. Nevarez on his application for reinstatement
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pursuant to the offer of reinstatement made to him during the hearing
herein by counsel for the respondents, the respondent corporation
shall offer Nevarez immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges and, in any event, make him whole for
any loss of pay that he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him, in the manner provided in Section V of the Inter-
mediate Report, entitled "The remedy";
(b) Post at their plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the respondents' representatives, be
posted by the respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive clays thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respond-
ents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the respondents unlawfully discriminated against Sam Garcia, Pablo
Hernandez, Abraham Simon, Bernard Tobon, and Charles Spallino
with respect to their hire or tenure of employment, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
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, as amended, 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, Stove Division, Local 1981, 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 deciee of a Cncuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice, before the woi (Is . "A Decision and Order," the words
"A Deci ec of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing."
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 121
O'KEEFE AND MERRITT MANUFACTURING COMPANY WILL OFFER to
the employee named below, in the event it has so far failed to
reinstate him, immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any sen-
iority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him. The employee is :
Richard A. Nevarez
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 member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
OICEEFE AND MERRITT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
By -------------------------------- -----------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------------
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY,
By -------------------------------- -----------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. David Aai on, for the Board
Mr Cecil W. Collins, of Los Angeles, Calif, for the respondents.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by the United Steelworkers of America,
Stove Division, Local 1981, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the CIO, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by its Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia), issued its complaint dated August 19, 1946, against O'Keefe and Merritt
Manufactui ing Company, herein called the respondent corporation, and L. G
Mitchell, W. J. O'Keefe, Marion Jenks, Lewis M. Boyle, Robert J. Merritt, Robert
J. Merritt, Jr., and Wilbur G. Durant, individually and as co-partners doing
business as Pioneer Electric Company, herein called the respondent partnership,
while both respondent companies herein are jointly called the respondents,
alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section S (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 thereon were duly
served upon the respondents and the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices. the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the respondents since on or about April 22, 1946, and at all times
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereafter to the date of the complaint herein engaged in acts of interference,
restraint , and coercion ;' (2) that in violation of Section S (1) and ( 3) of the
Act, the i espondents discharged 10 named employees on or about certain specified
dates ,' and (3 ) by the acts described above the respondents interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
During the hearing and on or about September 20, 1946 , the respondents filed
their answer to the complaint dem iug that they had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged.'
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California , on September
17, IS, and 20, 1946 , before Peter F Ward, Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the iespondents were represented by
counsel All parties participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the hearing , counsel for the
Board made a motion, in which counsel for the respondents joined, that the
pleadings be conformed to the proof The motion was granted. Also, at the
close of the heal ing counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be dismissed
without prejudice as to Victor Griftitts , Dewell Hoy Maxey, James Vogan Ind
Annison Williams . The motion was granted by the undersigned.
The parties argued orally at the conclusion of the hearing. Although the parties
were afforded an oppottunity to file brief, with the undersigned , no briefs have
been received
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSIN ESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
A 27te business of the respondent co) poi ation
O'Keele and Merritt Manufacturing Company is a California corporation
originally chartered in 1920 with its principal office and plant at Los Angeles,
California Prior to about February 4, 1946, it was engaged in the business of
manufacturing and selling gas appliances and electric refrigerators, except for
a period during World War II. During this period, from early in 1942 until
shortly after V-J Day (August 14, 1945) it was Solely engaged as a prime con-
tractor in the manufacture of electrical generator sets and various types of
I Stated more specifically these acts are alleged to consist of informing the employees
that they were butting their heads against a stone wall ; that they had better stop signing
up men in the CIO or they would walk the streets ; and telling employees they would have
to pay dues to the A F. L in order to get their jobs
2 Names and dates of the respective discharges, as alleged, are as follows
Pablo Hernandez, April 22, 1946 , Richard Nevarez, May 10, 1946 , Bernard Tobon,
June 11, 1946 ; Abraham Simon, June 21, 1946 ; Charles Spallino, May 1, 1946 ,
Sam Garcia, April 30, 1946 ,
together iNith four other named employees, as to whom the Complaint was, on motion of
the counsel for the Board, dismissed without prejudice
3 During the heal ing and in its answer, counsel for the iespondents stated that insofar
as the respondent O'Keefe and Dlerntt Manufacturing Company was concerned, he
appeared for it , that insofar as the respondent Pioneer Electric Company, a co-partner-
ship was concerned, any appearances that lie made would be only oh behalf of those persons
(partners) "who had been properly served " The record discloses that both respondents
were duly served in the manner provided by the Board' s Rules and Regulations and the
undersigned so finds.
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 123
ammunition for the United States Go\ernment. During 1945, the corporation
respondent sold products of an approximate value of $2,000,000, of which about
10 percent in value was sold in and shipped to States of the Uinted States other
than the State of Califoinin It admits, that it is eng'iged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act
B The buswiess of the respondent paitnership
Pioneer Electric Company was formed in 1942 by Ilobei t J Merritt, Louis
Boyle and Willis Boyle for the purpose of engaging as a sub-contractor in the
manufacture of War niateiials on a contract entered into by the respondent
corporation with the United States Government as the prime contractor On or
about January 1, 1944, Robert J. Merritt, Jr , became a member of the partnership.
All manufacturing operations of the partnership were carried on in a part of the
O'Keefe and Merritt plant under lease to the partnership at a monthly rental of
$500. By September 17. 1945, all of the government contracts had been canceled
and over SO percent of its employees had been terminated
On or about November 15, 1945, the partnership was again enlarged by taking
in W J O'Keefe, Marion Jenks, W. G. Durant and L. J Mitchell, at which time
Willis J Boyle withdrew from the partnership Durant, the managing partner,
owns a one-fourth interest and the other six partners each own a one-eighth
interest in the partnership New articles of partnership were entered into which
indicate that the partnership intended to engage in the manufacture and sale
of electrical equipment From November 20, 1045, to January 31, 1946, it em-
ployed about 15 production employees
On or about January 31, 1946, the respondent coiporation transferred to the
partnership respondent all of its manufacturing facilities and, on or about the
same day, transferred approximately 300 of its production employees to the pay
roll of the respondent partnership. The respondent partnership has since that
time continued to operate all of the manufacturing facilities at the Los Angeles
plant Pioneer admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act'
II TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, Stove Division, Local 1981, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background-the pizor unfair labor practices
The Board, upon an amended charge duly filed b^ the CIO, issued an amended
complaint dated February 21, 1946, alleging that the respondents had engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, by the commission of certain acts
of inteiference, restraint, and coercion ; by refusing to bargain with the CIO as the
duly designated representative in a duly certified appropriate unit, by entering
into contracts with certain unions affiliated with American Federation of Labor,
4 The findings in this section based upon a stipulation of the counsel for the respondents
and counsel for the Board entered into at the hearing to the effect that the facts con-
cennng commerce relating to the iespondents are Inc same as they were at the time a
stipulation conceiving commerce was entered into at the hearing held in the Matter of
O'Keefe and Merritt Mfg Co, et at, and United Steelwoikeis of America, Stove Division,
Local 1981, C 1 0, 70 N L It B 771.
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called A F L., at a time when none of the A F. L. unions had been duly
designated as exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the appropriate
unit within the meaning of the Act; and by other conduct has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held upon said amended complaint at Los
Angeles, California, on various dates between March 6 and 2S. 1946, before
Henry J Kent, a duly designated Trial Examiner. On August 27, 1946, the Board
issued its decision and order e finding that the respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged and ordered the respondents
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action.
In such decision, the Board found, inter alia, that the respondent corporation,
by the acts and speeches of its president, Daniel O'Keefe, and by the acts and
conducts of other officials, undertook and continued an aggressive campaign to
induce the employees to join A. F L. unions and wiihcliaw their membership
from the CIO. The Board further found that the respondent partnership had
entered into illegal closed-shop contracts with the A F. L unions at a time
when such unions had not been duly selected as bargaining representatives for
the employees in the certified appropriate unit, and ordered the respondents to
cease and desist from recognizing or in any manner dealing with the A F. L.
unions with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, unless and until said A. F L. unions shall have been
duly certified by the Board. The Board also ordered the respondents to bar-
gain collectively with the CIO The recol d in the instant case discloses that the
respondents have not complied with either directive and have continued to rec-
ognize and deal with the A F. of L unions
B The dtscrontnatory discharge
Richard A Nevarez
Nevarez was employed by the respondent corporation as a maintenance welder
on June 25, 1945. He worked under the supervision of Foreman William J.
Gattoni. The record discloses without contradiction that Gattoni never coin-
plained or criticized Nevarez's work Nevarez joined the CIO and wore CIO
buttons On May 10, 1946, Gattoni discharged him with the statement as follows :
Richard, I haven't got nothing against you. I always liked your work.
I don't know how to tell you this, but that's my orders. You have been laid
off.
After checking his tools Nevarez saw Personnel Manager Rotter who said,
"Well, Nevarez, work has slacked down and we will have to lay you off."
Rotter then asked Nevarez for his identification button. As Nevarez looked for
the button Rotter said, "You can't find your button, you got so many buttons on
you." When Nevarez said, "Yes," Rotter stated "That's quite a honor." At
this time Nevarez wore a CIO steward's button and a grievance committee but-
ton. Rotter then stated to Nevarez "Don't forget we are laying you off, that
work has slacked down. As soon as it picks up we'll call you back " 6
On June 3, 1946, Nevarez went to the plant and to the welders maintenance
department where he spoke to Gattoni, who asked him what he was doing
& 70 N L R B 771
O These findings with reference to the conversation between Nevarez and Rotter are
based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Nevarez.
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 125
Nevarez replied , "Oh, walking the streets " G,ittd t then asked , "Why don't
you colue and work for us'> 1 got a lot of work You can see that. " Nevarez
then informed Gattoni that lie had been waiting to be called back. To this
Gattoni replied:
Well, Richard , you know all you got, to do is to change a little bit and you
can come back to work . If you wei e to stay where you were in the first
place , you would be working now.
Nevarez said he would " think it over " and left the plant.7
Contentions ; conclusions
The respondents contend that Nevarez was discharged or laid off due to lack
of work, "a slightly inferior ability," and inability to pass a test required of a
certified welder.
The record discloses that at least one welder with less seniority had been
retained after Nevarez was discharged ; that the respondent corporation had
plenty of work for him on June 3, 1946; and that Nevarez was capable of per-
forming the work notwithstanding the fact that he had not been "certified."'
From the-above it appears that Nevarez was a satisfactory employee whose
work had never been criticized ; that tine respondent corporation had work for
him; that he was discharged because of his CIO membership and was refused
reinstatement because he refused "to change a little" (from C I O. to A. F. of L.
membership) ; and that the fact that he was not a "certified" welder was advanced
merely as a plausible pretext for his discriminatory discharge. It is so found.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, the undersigned con-
cludes and finds that the respondent corporation by the discharge of Richard A.
Nevarez on May 10, 1946, and its refusal to reinstate him because of his CIO
membership and activity, has discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the labor organization in
violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
C. The alleged dliscrimtnatory discharges
1. Sam Garcia
Garcia , a spray painter by occupation , was hired by Rotter on behalf of the
respondent corporation, on January 2, 1946. At this time Rotter asked Garcia
if he belonged to any union and the latter replied that lie belonged to "79-A F L.
Spray Painters " He was first assigned to the maintenance painters crew at a
dollar an hour and subsequently received a 10 cent an hour raise . He was then
' The findings as to the convei sations between Nevarez and Gattoni held on May 10 and
June 3. 1946, are based on the ci edited testimony of Nevarez Gattoni testified , as to the
May 10 conversation , that lie said , " Richie, due to the fact that we are slack , I am going
to have to lay you off I like your work , but being that we aie slack I have to lay you off."
As to the June 3 conversation Gattoni was asked if lie had made the statements credited
to him by Nevarez Ile replied "not that kind of voids , Mr. Collins I did tell him if he
would more or less become a certified welder Nye could use him " On the above and entire
roc^id the undeisigned concludes and finds that Gattoni on May 10 and June 3, 1946,
made the statements to Nevaiei substantially as found above.
In this connection Gattoni testified
Q (By Mr AARON ) You say Nevarez couldn't pass those tests ' Is that right, Mr.
Gattoni,
A Yes, sir.
Q However , you never had any criticism to make about his work , he always
peiformed his wink alright. Didn't he?
A. To my knowledge, yes
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
transferred to spray painting in another department and received an additional
10 cents per hour raise for a total of $120 per hour Garcia joined Local 1981 in
April and procured a CIO button.
In the spray painting department Garcia worked on lamps and clock boxes.
Percy Castron was the "straw boss" and .Jules Castron, Jr , a nephew of Percy
Castron, was Garcia's helper On or about April 15, 1946, and after Garcia had
joined the CIO and became a shop steward, he was approached by Rotter, who
said'
Sam, I don't think there is no reason for me talking to you of joining the
A. F. L, but what chance do you think you have got getting more money than
you are earning now?
Garcia replied that lie would "gamble on that
On April 30, 1946, Rotter called Garcia to his office and, after telling him th;,c
he had been hired as an experienced sprayer, and that his work had proved
to be "gruesome ," discharged him
The undisputed testimony in the record discloses that Garcia had been 'n the
spraying business for 20 years and in the position lie is at present employed, he
is in charge of his department.
Contentions ; conclusions
The respondents contend that Garcia was discharged because of inferior
work. In this connection the record discloses that Garcia's main job was spray-
ing lamps. Garcia admitted that 50 percent of the lamps on which he sprayed
paint were rejected He denied that Foreman 'McCarthy told hun his work was
detective and stated that McCarthy had said "that the paint would not hold
because it was rusty underneath" and thus admitted that lie had a discussion
with McCarthy concerning lamps that had to be rejected He testified that it
was no part of his duty to clean off the lamps befo e he st:_-ayed them and that it
was no part of his duty to call such matter to the attention of management. He
admitted that he knew that the paint would not stay on
In view of Garcia's admissions above set out, which are supported by testimony
of his former helper, and his "straw boss," the record will not support a finding
that he was discharged because of his CIO membership and activity.
Upon the basis of the above and the entire record the undersigned finds that
Garcia's discharge on April 30, 1946, was. not in violation of Section S (3) of the
Act It will be recommended below that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
so alleges.
The undersigned further finds that by Rotter's statements to Garcia, as
found above, to the effect that Garcia had no chance of receiving an increase in
pay if he did not join the A F. of L, the respondents have interfered with.
restrained , and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Pablo Hernandez
Hernandez was first employed by respondent corporation on February 11, 1944„
and continued such employment until June 23, 1945 , at which time he voluntarily
quit his job. As he left this position , Fred Rotter, then personnel manager for
U The finding in connection with Rotter ' s statement is based upon Garcia ' s credited and
uncontradicted testimony. While Rotter testified concerning Gaicia s discharge he vNas
not questioned concerning the above-quoted statement Since Rotter admitted that lie had
attempted to induce CIO members to loin the A F L, the undersigned credits Gal ua's
testimony.
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 127
the respondent corporation, informed him that he did not wish Hernandez to
quit as all foremen for whom he had worked were satisfied with his work.
In Mauch 1946, Hernandez retuined to the plant and made an application for
reeunplo^ meat. He was informed when an opening appeared he would be sent
for Subsequently he was sent for and started his second employment on March
7, 1946 He worked as a janitor under the supervision of Foreman Terrazas.
At his own request he was excused from work from April 18, 1946, until the Mon-
day, April 22, 1946. He joined the CIO and for the first time wore a button
on the morning of April 22, 1946 During the morning of that day he had oc-
casion to do certain janitor work where he was seen by Rotter, who, with the
aid of an interpreter 10 told him to go to the office and get his time. Hernandez
went to the office and after some 30 minutes received his check and was told
to leave.
Contentions; conclusions
The respondents contend and Rotter testified, that Hernandez's foreman, Ter-
razas, informed Rotter that Hernandez had a tendency to be slack in his work ;
that on Monday, April 22, 1946, Hernandez had taken some 30 to 35 minutes to
empty his trash barrel, which he took from the vicinity of the center of the fac-
tory to the rear thereof for a distance of about a short city block, that in checking
on Hernandez, the foreman noticed that lie was loafing considerably and talking
among other men, including the incinerator tender, an unnecessary length of time,
that upon being reprimanded by Terrazas he denied taking unnecessary time;
and, that, in view of the foregoing, Rotter thought it advisable to discharge
him as "he was a bad influence on other men doing similar work "
Terrazas was not called as a witness and Rotter was the only respondent wit-
ness to testify in this connection. Hernandez testified with the aid of an in-
terpreter and was not originally questioned concerning the alleged derelictions
on Monday, April 22, 1946, nor was he recalled to the witness stand to either
deny or admit Rotter's testimony in this connection No part of Rotter's testi-
mony in this connection has been denied. On the other hand there is no evidence
that Hernandez had ever been warned of a lack of industry in performing his work.
Nor is there any evidence that he had been slack in his work dui ing his last
employment prior to the day of his discharge Hernandez testilied that Rotter
saw his CIO button on this occasion Rotter, though called as a witness after
Hernandez, neither denied or admitted noticing the button.
The record in this ease discloses that Rotter took an active part in an attempt
to induce CIO members to join A. P. L" unions and the respondent-partnership
continued to recognize and deal with such A. F L unions notwithstanding the
Board's decision in the prior proceedings ordered the respondents to cease and
desist from recognizing or in any manner dealing with the A F L. unions until
and unless certified by the Board.
Although the circumstances in connection with Hernandez's discharge raise a
strong suspicion that his discharge was occasioned as a part and pal del of the
iespondents' determined efforts to discourage membership in the CIO and en-
courage membership in the A. F L. unions, they are insufficient to support a finding
to that effect. It is so found It will be recommended below that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Hernandez's discharge was in violation
of Section S (3) of the Act.
'0 Hernandez is of Spanish-11lencan descent and spoke no English
11 See findings herein in connection with the Tobon and Gaicia dischaigee
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 Bei nard Tobon
Tobon, a punch press operator, was employed2 on Januarv 28, 1946, by Rotter,
then personnel manager for the respondent corporation. He worked in the punch
press department during his entire employment. He was hired at an hourly rate
of 90 cents which was increased to $1 an hour after he had been employed 30 days.
He joined the CIO and thereafter wore a CIO button. In April 1946, Rotter
talked with Tobon in the punch press department and requested him to sign an
application for membership in the A. F. of L. Tobon refused to sign the applica-
tion, and stated,
I am in the America. T am in a free country, and I have a right to choose
my own union, and you or nobody else is going to choose it for me
Rotter, after telling Tobon that the latter would be unable to get a raise in
pay as a member of the CIO, asked Tobon for his plant identification number,
and left the department"
Following his refusal to sign an A. F of L application for membership as
aforesaid, Tobon's foreman set a die on his press in such a manner that it
was impossible to operate the press Tobon called the matter to the attention
of the (lie setter who then assigned Tobon to another job Thereafter Tobon
was assigned to part-time work at piece rates and part time at hourly rates.
Under the piece rates he could not average his hourly rate His varying assign-
ments to piece rate and hourly rate jobs wee e, according to him, so frequent and
irregular that he got "tired of that pushing over," and quit his job on May
10, 1946.
Contentions ; conclusions
Counsel for the Board contends that, by the acts of the respondent -partnership,
Tobon "was put in such an intolerable position that any further work at the
plant was made impossible for him . ." and that lie was tliei eby construc-
tively discharged . Respondents contend that Tobon 's treatment was no different
11 Tobon's employment application contained the following
Do You Belong to any Club, Lodge, Union, 'Military Organization 9
Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Addiess--------------------------------------------------------------------
to which Tobon replied "American Federation of Labor "
13 The findings in connection with the Tobon-Rotter conversation concerning the A. F. L.
and other matters touched in the conversation, are based on the credited testimony of
'Potion Rottei's testimony is in substantial agreement with that of Tobon Rotter
testified :
Q Do you recall having ahy conversation with hiin, [Tobon] with respect to joining
the A F L. union
A I do
Q what was that conversation
A None other than I approached hive as to whether lie was interested in joining
the A. F. L , and he immediately mentioned he was a member of the C. I. 0 , has no
intention of changing or woods to that effect, and that lie was-had a perfect right to
join whatever union lie preferred.
* X 4 k k 4
Q (blr Cor.Lrns ) Do you or did you not state to him that "The CIO won't get you
a raise. The A. F L. won't get you a raise, the company gets you a raise "
A. I did state that the CIO would at this time be unable to do anything for him,
that theie were automatic increases in our present A F L contract that would permit
the company to give him the necessae v raise in question.
Q why did you say the CIO wouldn't give him a raise"
A Because they did not have a contract in force with the Pioneer Electric Company.
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 129
than that of a hundred other employees in his department and that he had not
been discriminated against.
Tobon testified that there were from 80 to 100 men employed in the punch
press department and that lie did not know whether they worked at hourly
rates or piece rates.
The record contains no evidence hat in shifting Tobon about the respondents
treated him differently than it did other punch press operators in the depart-
ment.
Although the record in this case and the Board's decision in the prior proceed-
ings disclose a determination on the part of the respondent to discourage member-
ship in the CIO, and that Rotter's conduct in attempting, as found above, to,
induce 't.'obon to loin the A. F. of L, constitutes interference, the record in the-
instant case is insufficient to support a finding that the respondent-partnership
has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Bernard
Tobon within the meaning of the Act. It is so found. It will be recommended
below that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Tobon's termi-
nation of employment was in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
The undersigned finds that by Rotter's conduct and statement made in an
attempt to induce Tobon to join the A. F of L. as found above, the respondents
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that by the use of an employment application
form which required Tobon to disclose his union affiliation n as found above,
the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees
in the exeicise of the nghts guaranteed in Seel ion 7 of the Act.
4. Abraham Simon
Simon was lured as a tool and die maker on May 28, 1946 He worked under
the supervision of Jack Hamilton, foreman of the tool and die department. He
was first assigned to a "new job." but due to the lack of materials, lie was
assigned to overhauling certain (lies. After completing this overhaul job he
asked Hamilton if the work was satisfactory and the latter replied that it
"was alright. Fine " Simon then was assigned to another repair job which
required building with new parts. The work on this job was also characterized
by Hamilton by "fine."
Simon had been a member of the A F. of L for many years At the time
he applied for work the "boy" who took his application asked him to state his
union affiliation. He replied that lie belonged to the C10'°
About a week after Simon began work he was contacted by the tool room shop
steward for the A. F. of L. who sought to have him pay certain A F. of L. dues
which included a demand for $25 to be paid as a re-mnitiation fee or fine Simon
"The respondents contended that Army and Navy regulations required them to have
applicants for employment disclose their membership in "any club, lodge, union, (oi)
military organization,' together with the name and address thereof. No such regulation
was nitioduced in evidence heiern The Board has heretofore rejected a similar conten-
tion See Matter of D 1V. Onan & Sons, 50 N. L. R B 195, enf'd 139 F (2c1) 728
(C C A 8).
15 His un ion affiliation was not , however , stated on his application in the space provided
for such information The record does not disclose whether the "boy" conveyed the
mfoimation that Simon claimed CIO affiliation to respondent officers, nor dun the latter
dnclaiui such knowledge
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contended in effect that when lie left his job with Consolidated Steel at San
Diego, California, the A F of L had neglected to give him a transfer; that lie
should be permitted to pay (regular) dues without being fined, and suggested
that the shop steward "fix it up" for Simon to pay dues only.
On the morning of June 22, 1946, he "stopped" the shop steward and asked, "did
von straighten out anything'O" The shop steward replied, "$25 00 or it is too bad "
During the afternoon of June 22. 1946, Simon called Hamilton to has bench
and asked him to explain certain portions of a blueprint. Hamilton then said,
"Well,-you don't know how to read a blueprint-. Conie in Monday audi get your
check."
Contentions; conclusions
Counsel for the Board contends that Simon was dischai ged because lie would
not join or rejoin the A. F of L. Counsel for the respondents contend that Simon
was discharged because he could not read "simple, standard blueprints "
The record in the instant case and in the Board's decision in the prior piocced-
ing discloses that the respondents were and are determined to discourage member-
ship in the CIO, and to encourage membership in the A F of L, and to this end
the respondents' officers and agents have worked in close collaboration with rep-
resentatives of the A. F. of L The foregoing facts and the abiupt manner in
which Simon was discharged so shortly after he had refused to pan- the $25
fee or dues demanded by the A. F. of L. shop steward tend to support the con-
tentions of Board's counsel On the other hand, the record discloses that Simon
had difficulty in interpreting a blueprint on the day of his discharge Hannilton's
uncontradicted and credited testimony discloses that the blueprint in question
was a standard one and one which should be easily read by a 7ori•nevman (lie
maker. Although Simon's testimony and employment application indicates that
he has worked many years as a die maker, the undersigned cannot, upon the
record herein, find that lie is proficient at reading blueprints.
The undersigned concludes and finds that the record will not support a finding
that the respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
Abraham Simon within the meaning of the Act. It will be recommended below
that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it so alleges
5. Charles Spallino
Spallino had been employed by respondent corporation for approximately 19
years at the time of his dicharge on or about May 1, 1946. The record in the
instant case and the decision of the Board in the prior proceedings disclose that
Spallino was formerly a member of the A. F. of L.; that prior to the advent
of the CIO and in the early days of its organizational activities , Spallino along
with other employees, collaborated with officers of the respondent corporation
in the hatter's efforts to encourage membership in the A F. of L. and to discourage
membership in the CIO ; that subsequently Spallino joined the CIO and became
an officer therein; that he testified at length during the prior proceedings herein
that after the close of the said hearing he returned to work for the respondent
corporation but not to his job in the service department, as that operation had
,been sold to a third party ; that, although lie had worked for many years and
in many departments, he was then transferred to the receiving department which
entailed a 15 cents an hour reduction in his pay;Nthat thereafter the receiving
department was moved and Spallino was transferred to the shipping department
which was under the "A. F. of L. Teamsters" ; that within less than 2 days he
was advised by Rotter that he was to be transferred because the A. F. of L.
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 131
Teamsters objected to him working in the shipping department since he was not
an A F of L member ; and that he was subsequently transferred to the construe-
tion department as a welder's helper.
The record herein further discloses that after the CIO had won an election
and had been designated as bargaining representative for the production and
inainlenance employees of the respondent corporation, Spallino was informed
by Cecil W. Collins, respondents' counsel herein, who was also labor relations
mlvi^^nr for both respondents, that if he would drop the CIO and return to the
A F of L and "play ball" with Collins, the latter would see that he made more
money. and that Spallino elected to continue with the 010.
The record herein further discloses that among the employees of the respond-
ent corporation was Francis Norman Pearce, who served with the Merchant
Marine during the receilt war; that while Pearce was absent with the Merchant
Marine, Spallino had an "affair" with Pearce's wife resulting in the pregnancy of
the latter; that on or about January 1, 1946, after Pearce's discharge from the
Merchant Marine. his wife informed him of her relationship with Spallino; that
when Pearce returned to work and was greeted with a "Hello" by Spallino, he
replied, "Don't hello me, you son of a B-bitch"; that on May 1, 1946, during a
recess period, Spallino noticed William O'Keefe, acting manager for the respond-
ent and Superintendent Joseph Spallmo, his brother, observing him at the lunch
counter; that Spallino then returned to his job in the enamel department and
within a few moments Pearce appeared and grabbed both of Spallino's arms and
said, "This is it" and added "call your bodyguards" ; that promptly thereafter
O'Keefe and Joseph Spallino separated Pearce and Spallino, took them to the
office' and discharged both Spallino and Pearce.
Contentions ; conclusions
The respondents -contend that Spallino was discharged because he had vio-
lated a long standing rule agauust,fighting on the premises. Spallino contends
that the respondent knew of his affair with Pearce's wife and rehired Pearce in
order to have him attack Spallino, and thereby furnish a plausible pretext for
the discharge
It is clear from the record that the respondents resented the fact that Spallino
had joined the CIO and continued in his adherence to it despite Collins' efforts,
as set forth above. to get horn to quit the CIO and rejoin the A F of L. It is
further apparent that the respondents, by frequently transferring Spallino from
department to department after he testified at the prior proceedings, sought to
induce him to become dissatisfied with his job and either quit his job or join
the A. F. of L.
Notwithstanding the foregoing it is undisputed that the respondents had an
unwritten rule which had been in existence for 14 years to the effect that anyone
who fought on the premises for any reason would be discharged forthwith.
Although the presence of O'Keefe and Joseph Spallino at the lunch counter
and their subsequent presence at Spallino's department as above set out, together
with the rather spiritless encounter between Pearce and Spallino, may give rise
to a suspicion that the whole affair was planned, it is unreasonable to believe
that Spallino's brother would enter into a conspiracy to "frame" him or that
O'Keefe, who had general supervision over approximately 1,000 employees then
engaged at the plant, would be a party to such a plan.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and entire record the undersigned concludes
and finds that by the discharge of Charles Spallino on May 1, 1946, the respondents
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have not discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment and that
such discharge did not violate Section 8 (3) of the Act.
It will be recommended below that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
so alleges.
The undersigned further finds by the acts, statements, and conduct of Cecil \V.
Collins, their labor relations advisor, in citesing to see that Spallino made more
money if he would drop the CIO and return to the A. F. of L., and "play ball"
with Collins, the respondent has interfered with, iestramed, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce
among the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom
and tak certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent corporation has discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Richard A Nevarez, thereby discour,iging
membership in a labor organization During the hearing counsel for the
respondents offered" Nevarez reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position with the respondent corporation It will be recommended
that in the event the said Nevarez has applied for reinstatement and the re-
spondent corporation has not reinstated him, that it offer him immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position'' without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and in any event make
him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discriminatory
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings" during
such period.
1° During the hearing counsel for the respondents offered all claimants herein immediate
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions The undersigned
assumes that those employees who may have sought and accepted reinstatement under
offer and whose discharges the undersigned has found to be non-discriminatory will be
retained by the respondents so long as work is available and their jobs are properly
performed by the reinstated emploveos
"In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expiession
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position whei-
ever possible , but if such position n° no longer in existence , then to a substantially
equivalent position See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L R B 827.
18 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation room,
and boaid, incuired by all employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondents , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of C+ossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L R B 440 Monies received for work perfouued
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other wok-relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R B., 311 U S 7
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 133
Tu view of the unfair labor practices found to have been committed by the
respondents in the prior proceedings constituting violation of Section 8 (1), as
well as Section 8 (5) which the record indicates the respondents have not as yet
remedied , and have given no indication of any intention to remedy , and in view
of the fact that the undersigned has found that in the instant proceedings, the
respondents have violated Section 8 (1) and ( 3) of the Act , the undersigned is
of the opinion and finds that there is danger of the commission of other and
additional unfair labor practices in the future The unfair labor practices thus
Jar engaged in by the respondents has led to discrimination of such a degree as
caused the average employee to conclude that any union or concerted activity
on his part , not approved by the respondents , would lead to a loss of his job.
This disclosed attitude of the respondents toward self-organization by its em-
ployees and the continuing threat which it implies requires a cease and desist
order as broad as the threat.
It will therefore be recommended that the respondents cease and desist from
in any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in their
right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act's
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLtiSIoNS or LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, Stove Division, Local ]981, C I. 0., is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By discrnn,*_iating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Richard A. Nevarez, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
the respondent corporation 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 respondents have engaged
in and are engaged 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. By the discharge of Sam Garcia, Pablo Hernandez, Abraham Simon, and
Charles Spallino, and by Bernard Tobon's termination, the respondents have not
violated Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent corporation, O'Keefe and Merritt
Manufacturing Company and respondent partnership, Pioneer Electric Company,
a co-partnership and L J Mitchell, W J. O'Keefe, Marion Jenks, Lewis M. Boyle,
Robert J. Merritt, Robert J. Merritt, Jr, and Wilbur 0 Durant, individually and
as co-partners, doing business as Pioneer Electric Company, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, Stove Divi-
sion, Local 1981, C I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees by
19 See N L R B. v Express Publishing Coin pony, 312 U S 426; May Department
Stores Company v N. L R B, 326 U S 376.
766972-48-vol 75-10
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discrinnuntorily discharging employees or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment:
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, Stove Division, Local 1981,
C 1. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing and to engage in 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.
(a) In the event respondent corporation has tailed to reinstate Richard A.
Nevarez on application for reinstatement pursuant to the offer of reinstatement
made him during the hearing herein by counsel for the respondents, the respond-
ent corporation shall offer Nevarez numediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and in any event make him whole for any loss of
pay lie may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the
manner provided in the section entitled "The remedy" ;
(b) Post at their plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of the said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondents' representatives, be posted by the respondents
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (6'0) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondents to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material ;
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region on or
before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Inteunediate Report, a iepoit
in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent
has complied with the toiegmng recomnnnendations
It is further recommended that the complaint insolar as it alleges that the
respondents have violated the provisions of Section 8 (3) of the Act by dis-
charginr Stun Garcia, Pablo Hermiidez, Abraham S'im on, Ben nand Tobon and
Charles Spallino be dismissed.
It is further recommended that unless on or betore ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondents notify said Regional Direc-
tor in wilting that they will comply with the foregoing ieconnnendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to
take action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 20339 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or coun-
sel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the
order transferring the case to the Boai d, 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 retold 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
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY 135
and four copies of a bi ref in support of the Intermediate Report . Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exemptions and/or briefs , the pai ty or counsel
for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
patties 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 05 As further prov ided in said Section 203 39 , should
any party desire Permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor
must be made in waiting to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
PETER F \YAia),
Ti sal I'; cani'mer.
Dated December 13, 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 notity our employees that.
AVE WILL. NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to for in labor
organizations. to lout of assist United Steelworkers of America, Stove Di-
vision, Local 1981, C I 0 , 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
O'KEEFE AND MERRITT MANUFACTURING COMPANY WILL OFFER to the em-
ployee named below inimediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and snake him whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. The employee is.
Richard A. Nevarez
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.
O'KEEFE AND MERRIIT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
By ------------------------ ------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------------
PIONEER ELECTRIC COMPANY,
By ------------------------ ---------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, :III(] must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.