Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc. and United Furniture Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-5805
March 11, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On September 21, 1967, Trial Examiner John G.
Gregg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain, affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other al-
leged unfair labor practices and recommended that
such allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and
the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision, and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the. Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-ex-
ceptions, and supporting briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer , with the following modifications.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discharging employee Kenneth Prue, and
that it committed independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) by interrogations of employees, creating
the impression of surveillance of union activities,
and maintaining an overly broad no-solicitation
rule. However, we do not agree with the Trial Ex-
aminer 's conclusion that the Respondent 's promise
of certain wage increases and their effectuation
during the Union's organizational drive did not con-
stitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
' Certain of the Respondent 's exceptions relate to the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings It is the Board's established policy, however, not to
overrule the Trial Examiner 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless,
as is not the case here , the preponderance of all the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A 3)
2 That is , the Respondent purportedly felt that all employees , rather than
The Federal minimum wage was increased to
$1.40 effective on February 1, 1967, and to
become $1 .60 on February 1, 1968 . At various
management meetings during 1966 after the enact-
ment of the amendment , Respondent expressed the
fear that the new rate would price it out of the mar-
ket, and it retained a personnel consultant to arrive
at a method of complying with the law by the effec-
tive dates in the context of the Respondent 's exist-
ing incentive -rate and day-rate systems . The latter
type of compensation pattern had a minimum
beginning wage for various job classifications, and a
probationary period for newly hired employees. It
also provided for periodic wage increases, which
resulted in wage spreads based on length of em-
ployment.
According to the Respondent , it wanted to
comply with the law in a gradual manner so that the
higher cost of labor would not have to; be absorbed
at one time, and it therefore raised, the lowest
beginning day rate to $1.40 per hour on October
10, 1966 . Although it claims that its later increase,
described below, was brought about by the desire
to preserve the wage spreads in its -system in order
to be fair to all employees,' the Company did not
grant an increase to older employees at that time.
On January 16, 1967, Respondent informed the
employees of an increase and on February 1, 1967,
it raised the wages of all nonprobationary day-rate
employees who were making less than $1.50 to that
amount, and the wages of those who were making
$1.50 or more by 6 cents per,hour. The Respon-
dent raised the overall wages of its incentive em-
ployees by increasing the amount of their vacation
pay. At the same time , however , the Respondent
also had to lay off a number of employees because
of a decrease in available work caused by a reduc-
tion in its backlog of orders.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, we conclude that
these increases were in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
insofar as they exceeded the minimum required by
law. The January 16 announcement and the
February 1 increase took place during the union or-
ganizational drive and in the context of other unfair
labor practices.' The Respondent's concern about
being priced out of the market by the $1.40
minimum and its contemporaneous layoff of em-
ployees are inconsistent with a wage increase over
and above the legal minimum. Finally, the Respon-
dent's alleged desire to be fair to all employees
only new hires, should receive some benefit because of the new minimum
wage, and that it would be inequitable to hire a new man at $1 .40 and also
to pay an older employee, whose wage rate was based on a lower minimum
wage and longer tenure, the same amount
3 The peak of union activity seems to have been between the December
5 meeting of employees with the Furniture Workers and January 23, 1967,
the date Prue was unlawfully discharged.
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC. 221
would, by its own logic, have required a wage in-
crease for employees with longer tenure on Oc-
tober 10, 1966, when it raised the minimum start-
ing wage to $1.40. This reasoning leads us to the
conclusion that the Respondent promised and
granted the wage increases over the minimum wage
for the purpose of discouraging membership in or
assistance to the Union, and we find that the
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act .4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc.,
Orleans, Vermont, its -officers, agents , successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(b) of the,
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, relettering
the present 1(b) as 1(c):
"(b) Promising- or granting wage increases for.
the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act; provided;
however, that nothing herein shall be construed as
requiring the Respondent to withdraw, change, or
abandon any of the wages currently enjoyed by its
employees."
2. Change the period at the end of new para-
graph 1(c) to a comma, and add the following
thereto: "except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959."
3. In the Appendix attached to the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order insert the following
as the fourth indented paragraph:
WE WILL NOT promise or grant- wage in-
creases for the purpose of interfering with,
restraining, or coercing our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act; but nothing in the Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board requires us to
modify or change the wages which our em-
ployees now enjoy. _
4 Member Fanning would adopt the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the
complaint as to the wage increases for the reasons stated in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN G . GREGG , Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was conducted in Newport, Vermont, on May 10,
11, and 12, 1967, on -complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of the Orleans Mfg. Co ., Inc.,
herein called the Respondent . The complaint al-
leges violations by the Respondent of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. At the hearing all
parties were represented by counsel and were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to present evidence.
The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the
Union submitted briefs which have been carefully
considered. Subsequent to the close of hearing, a
motion was made by the General Counsel dated
July 6, 1967, to correct the official report of
proceedings. The motion is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record, and my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is and has been at all times
material herein a corporation duly organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Vermont, maintaining its principal office and place
of business at the town of Orleans, county of Orle-
ans, and State of Vermont, and is and continously
has been engaged at its Orleans plant in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of furniture and re-
lated products. The Respondent in the course and
conduct of its business causes and has continuously
caused, at all times material herein, large quantities
of lumber and hardware used by it in the manufac-
ture of furniture to be purchased and transported in
interstate commerce - from and through various
States of the United States other than the State of
Vermont; and causes and continuously. has caused,
at all times material herein, substantial quantities of
furniture to be sold and transported from said plant
in interstate commerce to States of the United
States other than the State of Vermont. In its
operations the Respondent annually ships products
having a value in excess of $50,000 to points out-
side the State of Vermont. It is admitted, and I find,
that the Respondent- is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO , hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent
discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure or
term or conditions of employment of Kenneth Prue,
an employee at its Orleans plant, by discharging
him on or about January 23, 1967, and failing and
refusing to reinstate him to, his former or substan-
tially equivalent position of employment, for the
reason that he joined or assisted the Union or en-
gaged in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection. Additionally the General Counsel alleges
that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by interrogating em-
ployees- concerning union meetings and union ac-
tivities through Supervisor Frank Gilfillan on or
about December 4, 1966, and January 9, 1967;
creating the impression of surveillance of union ac-
tivities and interrogating employees concerning
union activities through Supervisor William Curtis
on or about January 18, 1967; that on or about
January 16, 1967, by Supervisor and Agent Bjarne
Kvingedal, offered, promised, and granted a wage
increase to its employees for the purpose of
discouraging membership in or ,assistance to the
Union; and that the Respondent at all times materi-
al herein maintained a rule forbidding distribution
of literature on the Respondent's premises without
-written authorization. The General Counsel alleges
that by and'through the foregoing acts the Respon-
dent is engaged in and has committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent admits the discharge of Kenneth
Prue on January 23, 1967, as alleged in the cool-
plaint, but denies that the discharge was for the
reason advanced by the General Counsel, contend-
ing that Prue was discharged for threatening his fel-
low employees Guyette and Dow. The Respondent
denies the commission of any other unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint.
A. Background
The record discloses that around November 1,
1966, Kenneth Prue, an employee of the Respon-
dent, was contacted-and asked to solicit in behalf of
the International Association,of Machinists in order
to unionize the `Respondent's mill. Prue and, an or-
ganizing committee were provided with authoriza-
tion cards and commenced activities. Later in
November, Prue was contacted' by representatives
of the United Furniture Workers and, after discus-
sions , Prue arranged for the two competing unions
to debate the relative merits of each.- A debate was
scheduled for the night of December 5 at Morgan,
Vermont. On November 28, Bjarne Kvingedal, the
Respondent's general manager, gave a speech on
company time to employees at the plant .in which
he indicated among other things that there were
two unions trying to get into the plant and in which
he reminded the employees of 'a strike which had
occurred at the Butterfield Company in Derbyline,
Vermont, indicating that the employees at that
plant had been out of work for 10 weeks and would
take 4 years to recoup what they had lost; that if
the Union came in the employees would have to
pay a minimum of $5 in union dues per month.
Kvingedal advised the employees that if anyone was
threatened in connection with the, organizing cam-
paign it should be reported immediately to the of-
fice.
On December 5, the night that the debate was
scheduled, Prue was advised that the International
Association of Machinists was not going,to debate.
In lieu of the debate a meeting was held that night
in Newport, Vermont, attended by about 15 em-
ployees and Furniture Workers Union Agents Mor-
ton and Marino. After a general discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of unionism, the men
at the meeting decided to attempt to-get the Furni-
ture Workers Union into the plant. Marino pro-
vided authorization cards and advised the men not
to solicit signatures on company time. The record
discloses that between December 5, 1966, and
January 23, 1967, the date of Prue's discharge,
about 130 authorization cards on behalf of the
Union were signed by employees of the Respon-
dent. Of these 130 cards about 12 to 15 had been
personally solicited by Prue, of which one card was
actually signed and obtained by him. It is admitted
and I find that Prue was active in the organizing
campaign and that the Respondent had knowledge
thereof.
B. The Discharge of Prue
1'. The facts surrounding the alleged threats to
Dawson
Daniel Beaton, Prue's supervisor, testified that on
Saturday, January 21, he met Dawson, who told
him that the night before Dawson-and Prue had had
a fight. According to Beaton, Dawson stated that
the fight was over signing a card, a union card, that
Dawson would not sign the card. Later that day,
Kvingedal telephoned Beaton, and Beaton
discussed the matter with him.
Ralph Dawson, an employee of the Respondent
for 1 -1 years, testified that he had known Kenneth
Prue for approximately 15 years, that on the day of
Prue's discharge he, Dawson, was called to Mr.
Walker's office where he met with _ Company
Representatives Kvingedal,, Walker,., and Beaton.
According to Dawson, Kvingedal told Dawson-that
he had heard some rumors that Prue and 'Dawson
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC. 223
had had some trouble and he was interested in
knowing whether it was over union matters. Kvin-
gedal asked Dawson if Prue was threatening him
over the signing of the union card and, according to
Dawson, Dawson answered, "No." Dawson testified
further that Kvingedal told him how he, Kvingedal,
thought Prue was conducting illegal practices in
securing names for the Union. Dawson testified that
at no time did he tell anyone that he and Prue had
fought over a union matter and testified further that
Kenneth Prue had never told him that he would
lose his job if he did not sign a union card nor did
Prue ever threaten him in any way to get him to
sign a union card. Dawson recalled having made
the statement that "would be a cold day in hell" be-
fore Kenneth Prue got him to sign a union card. As
to the actual tussle between Dawson and Prue,
Dawson testified that he was probably pretty well
intoxicated at the time so he could not really say
what the fight was about, but he did testify that the
Union was not mentioned as far as he could re-
member. According to Dawson, sometime after
Prue's discharge that morning, Beaton told him that
the tussle between Dawson and Prue had nothing to
do with Prue's discharge inasmuch as the Company
had taken into account the fact that the two men
had been drinking at the time of the fight.
Beaton, in his testimony, indicated as follows:
Q. Did he tell you he'd been threatened by
Prue?
A. Not-prior to this, no.
Q. Did he tell you when you saw him on
Saturday, the 21st, that he'd been threatened
by Prue?
A. He told me he had a fight with Prue.
Q. Did he tell you he had been threatened
by Prue?
A. He told me he had a fight. I assumed he
was threatened.
Q. Did he tell you he was threatened by
Prue?
A. Verbally using the word threat?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Based on my observation of Dawson as he
testified, I credit his testimony that he at no time
stated to anyone that he and Ken Prue had fought
over the matter of the Union or the signing of the
union authorization card and I credit his statement
that at no time did Kenneth Prue in any way
threaten ,him.
2. The facts surrounding the alleged threats to
James Guyette
James Guyette, an employee of the Respondent,
testified that he was a 'sealer-sprayer at the Respon-
dent's plant at Orleans and that his work station
was quite close to Kenneth Prue's. Guyette testified
that sometime prior to the speech by Kvingedal in
November, Kenneth Prue approached him and
asked him to sign a card for the Machinists Union.
Guyette indicated that he did not sign the card; that
when Prue asked him for the card he said he was
not signing the card mainly because the Machinists
Union would not work in a furniture factory. Sub-
sequently in December, Prue gave him a union card
for the Furniture Workers of America asking him
to take the card, sign it , and bring it back the next
day.
Guyette testified that a day or two later Prue
asked Guyette if he had signed the card; Guyette
said, "No."
Q. What did he say?
A. He said if I don't sign the card, it is possi-
ble I will lose my job.
In another version of the same exchange Guyette
testified as follows:
Q. Would you tell us exactly what he said to
you?
A. He come to me and asked for the union
card, and I told him no, I did not have it. Then
he asked me why not. I told him I want more
time to think about it. Then he said I'll lose my
job if I don't sign the card.
According to Guyette, from the time he was al-
legedly threatened around December 12 or 13 until
sometime in January , Kenneth Prue would come by
his place from time to time and query him about
the card , and that Kenneth Prue would indicate
that if Guyette would sign the card, he would make
things go more smoothly. Prue is alleged to have in-
dicated that if Guyette did not sign the card, when
the Union came into the mill, Guyette would have
to pay $15 more than anyone else. Guyette testified
that between December 13 and January 1, at times
when the production line was slowed down or
stopped, Prue would also make gestures indicating
that if Guyette signed the card things would go
smoothly.
Q. Well what kind of gestures?
A. Like when I am standing there with my
line filled and empty at the other end, he
would be down by his booth, I'm standing
there doing nothing. He'd put his palm, out
take his hand like this, as to 'sign the union
card, and things would go smoothly.'
Guyette testified further that about the second
week in January, around the 10th, he had another
conversation with Kenneth Prue when Prue came
by the spray booth and asked if he had the card.
Guyette told him he did not. At this point accord-
ing to Guyette, Prue said that if Guyette did not
' The Respondent's offer to adduce additional testimony tending to
prove that Prue threatened Guyette by allegedly stopping the production
line and making gestures indicating that, if Guyette signed the card, the
production would be resumed was rejected in view of the clear admission
by the Respondent that it had no knowledge of,such alleged action at the
time of Prue's discharge and that such action played no part in the decision
to discharge Prue
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign the card he would lose his job . Guyette alleged
that Prue also repeated that if he did not sign the
card he would have to pay $ 15 more than anybody
else if the Union got in.
Guyette, however , had previously stated that
Prue passed his booth and said that if he did not
sign the card Prue "would see to it" that Guyette
would, have to pay $ 15 initiation pay if the Union
got in.
Q. Was that statement true when you made
it?
A: To an extent it was.
Guyette also admitted that he had told another em-
ployee , Therrian, that Prue had told Guyette that
he could be protected by signing the card and that
he would also be protected by Federal law.
Prue , in his testimony , denied that he ever told
Guyette that unless Guyette signed the card he
would lose his job. He did not recall that he ever
stated to Guyette that unless he signed the card it
would 'cost him $15 if the Union got in . Prue did
recall that he had told other people in connection
with the union campaign that if the Union got in
those who did not sign cards would have to pay an
initiation fee. probably $15 more or less depending
on what the committee decided.
Guyette testified further that ultimately at
Beaton 's request he went to Walker 's office where
he met with Walker and Kvingedal and where Kvin-
gedal asked him if any rough play or threats were
going on . Just what Guyette told Kvingedal is; not
clear . In his testimony Guyette said that when he
went to the office , he told Kvingedal that Ken Prue
had come to him saying that if he, Guyette , did not
sign the card , he would get fired , and that Prue
would see to it that Guyette would pay $15 if the
Union, got in . However, on cross-examination,
Guyette stated ,that he advised Kvingedal that Prue
came by his booth and said that if, he , Guyette, did
not sign the - card , he could get fired at any time
without any warning , but if he did sign the card he
could not get fired or laid off because he would be
protected by signing the card and by a Federal law.
Guyette testified that this statement , as given to
Board investigators , was what he had told Kvin-
gedal in the meeting. Based on my observation of
the demeanor of the witness, Guyette, as he
testified , his lack of directness, his variations in
testimony concerning the statements alleged to
have been made to him by Prue and his admission
of dislike for Prue , I do not credit his testimony. I
am persuaded and I find from the record that
Guyette stated to Kvingedal that Prue told him that
if he did not sign the card he could get fired at any
time without warning but if he did sign the card he
could not-get fired or laid off because he, would be
protected by signing the card and by a Federal law.
I also find that while undoubtedly Prue made state-
ments to Guyette requesting-that the card be signed
and returned , these statements urging Guyette to
sign the card , and pressing for an early signature,
were made in an attempt to "sell," the Union to
Guyette , and,I do not find them to be threats but
view them more as statements indicating that the
signing of the card would mean job protection, and
advising Guyette that if and when the employees
selected the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive he could anticipate the payment of an initiation
fee which could be saved by an early signing of the
card . I find therefore not only that Prue did not
threaten Guyette , but that Guyette 's statement to
Kvingedal concerning Guyette 's discussions with
Prue were not such as to clearly indicate to Kvin-
gedal that Prue had actually threatened Guyette.
3. The facts surrounding the alleged threats to Mrs.
Dow
Mrs. Samira "Vicky" Dow, an employee of the
Respondent , testified that she worked on the same
conveyer belt as did Kenneth Prue . According-to
Mrs. bow , Prue approached her about a week be-
fore his discharge at her working area near the con-
veyer belt inside the finishing room and asked if she
were going to join the Union and when she said no,
she was not interested, he said that if she did not
join the Union she would not be working there long
and that if she would smarten up she would' be
getting more pay. According to Mrs. Dow, this con-
versation began within the mill and continued while
they walked all the way out to the smoking area
where the employees took their break. Mrs. Dow
testified that some time later and prior to Prue's
discharge she told Mr. Curtis , her foreman , of this
conversation with Prue. Subsequently she was
called to Beaton 's office and finally was called to
Kvingedal 's office where 'she met with Kvingedal
and Walker . According to Mrs . Dow, she told them
that Prue had talked to her about joining the Union
and that she just was not interested and that Prue
had stated that if she did not join the Union she
would not be working there long. According to
Mrs. Dow , at the time Prue was alleged to have
stated that she would not have a job, no one else
was present but that when they got out to the
smoke break area, there were a few ' individuals
around but they were not listening to what Mrs.
Dow and Prue were discussing. According to Mrs.
Dow, "They were not interested."
0. It's your testimony that Dean Sweeney
was not there at that time?
A. Dean Sweeney wasn 't there with us.
Q. Was Dean Sweeney outside , during the
break?
A. He might have been. I don't know.
Q. Do you remember if he was?
A. But he wasn 't listening to what we were
talking about.
Q. Well, you don 't know that, though, do
you?
'A. Well; I'm positive. -
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC. 225
Q. You don't know if Sweeney heard what
you were talking about, do you?
A. Well, ,l don't think Sweeney 's interested
in that much.
Mrs. Dow testified further as follows:
Q. How about your daughter, was she
around when you were out on break?
A. My daughter was, there, yes, but -she
wasn 't listening to what we was talking about.
She doesn't get involved with my arguments.
Q. Your daughter was standing out there,
wasn't she, when you and Prue were talking?
A. Yes, she was standing there side of the
rail.
,Q. And her husband was there too, wasn't
he?,
A. Her husband was there with her.
In his testimony Prue denied ever discussing the
Union with Mrs. Vicky Dow except on the one oc-
casion when he had had a conversation with Mrs.
Dow concerning the Union outside the mill in the
afternoon at breaktime. Prue denied that he had
ever solicited Mrs. Dow to sign a union card and
denied that he told her that if she did not sign, a
card she would lose her job.
Mrs. Gwendoline Blake, an employee of the
Respondent, testified that she was Mrs. _ Samira "-
Vicky''' Dow's daughter. Mrs. Blake testified that
she was present on an occasion when Prue and her
mother were talking about the Union. This took
place, according to Mrs. Blake, at a coffee break
just outside the- mill and present were Prue, Mrs.
Blake's mother, Vicky Dow, Mrs. Blake's husband,
Dean Sweeney, and several other people. Accord-
ing to Mrs. Blake, she heard Prue tell her mother
that if anyone should want' a union it should be
Mrs. Dow, that' Mrs. Dow had been there for 14
years and that the Company hired people off the
street and paid them more, money an hour than
they paid to Mrs. Dow, and that a union would pro-
tect Mrs. Dow's seniority. According to Mrs. Blake,
at this time, her husband or one of those present
said, "that's right." Mrs. Blake testified that she did
not remember Prue telling her mother that if she
did not join the Union she would not have a job.
Nor did 'she remember Prue telling her mother that
if she did not sign a card, she would not have a job.
Nor did she remember Prue telling her mother that
if'she did not join the Union or if, she did not sign a
card she would not be working there- long.. Mrs,
Blake testified that she did -not hear Mr. Prue
threaten her mother in-any manner on that occa-
sion.- In her testimony , Mrs. Blake , however, in-
dicatedthat she did not have a clear memory of the-
incident.
Dean Sweeney , an employee of the Respondent
and one of Prue's coworkers, testified that he was
an employee of the Respondent, had been em-
ployed at the Orleans' plant for almost 6 years, and
had worked with Prue in the same department.
Sweeney testified that he had a routine that he nor-
mally followed at breaktime and that almost every
day he took this break with Ken Prue, in which they
went outside the main exit, out in front of the mill,
and had a cigarette, Sweeney testified that he was
present outside the plant during a break, when Prue
and Vicky Dow discussed the Union and that their
union discussion took ' place on only one occasion,
around the middle of January 1967. He testified
that also present beside Prue and Mrs. Dow were
Mr. and Mrs.- Blake. According to Sweeney, the
discussion about the Union began outside the plant.
While he, Sweeney, and Kenneth Prue were talking
about the Union, Mrs. Dow overheard their conver-
sation and said they did not need a union. Prue
then told her that she had worked there, if anyone
should want a union she should, she had been there
almost 14 years and that there were women work-
ing there for 6 months -who were making more than
she was . According to Sweeney, at this time Mr.
Blake said, "that's right." Sweeney testified that he
also went back into the plant with Ken Prue when
the break was over and that he had also walked out
of the plant with Ken Prue when the break started.
Sweeney testified that Prue did not ask Mrs. Dow
to sign a union card on this occasion , nor did he ask
Mrs. Dow to join the Union. Sweeney stated that
Prue'did not tell Mrs. Dow that if she did not join
the Union she would not be working there long.
Based on my observation of the witness Sweeney
while he testified, I credit his testimony.
In view of my observation of the demeanor of the
witness Mrs. Dow as,she testified, and in view of my
crediting the testimony of Mrs._ Blake and Sweeney,
both of whom essentially contradicted Mrs. Dow's
version, I do not credit Mrs. Dow's testimony and
am persuaded and I find that no threats were made
to Mrs. Dow by Prue.
- 4. The discharge of Prue by Kvingedal
Bjarne Kvingedal; the Respondent 's general
manager , testified that on January 21 he was in-
formed about a fight between Prue and,Dawson
over the Union. According to Kvingedal, he con-
tacted Mr. Walker who indicated that he too had
heard about the fight. They then conferred with
Dan Beaton, who also said that he had heard about
it. Kvingedal testified, that this disturbed him, and
he was "concerned About it." According to Kvin-
gedal ; on Monday morning, , January 23, Kvingedal
summoned Dawson who told -Kvingedal that he had
had a fight with Kenneth Prue - and it was about the
Union. Kvingedal asked Dawson if Prue was
threatening him, and Dawson allegedly said no, he
could -handle his own problems, at which point-
Dawson left and went back to work,. According to
350-999 0 - 71 - 16
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Kvingedal at this time he had a call from Beaton,
who told him that one of the' employees, James
Guyette, had been threatened and wanted to speak
with Kvingedal. Kvingedal interviewed Guyette,
who according to Kvingedal, said that Prue had
been "bugging" him and threatening him and say-
ing that if he did not sign a card he would not have
a job at the plant and that if Guyette did not sign a
card, when the Union came ' in it would cost him
$15 more than anyone else. About this same time,
Kvingedal testified, he received another call, this
time it was Mrs. Samira "Vicky" Dow, an employee
of the Respondent, who had talked to her super-
visor and wished to talk to Kvingedal. According to
Kvingedal, Mrs. Dow told him that Prue had been
"bugging" her too, had been talking to her about
signing a card, and that if she did not sign a card,
she would not have a job. At this point, according
to Kvingedal, he felt that he had to fulfill his obliga-
tion, having promised his employees'that he would
personally take care of any situation involving
threats. Kvingedal testified that he then called Prue
to the office. "I said Ken, I said you remember the
speech I 'gave, and I said that no one had to join the
union to work at Orleans Manufacturing, but the
main thing was this, if anyone is threatened I will
take care of this myself personally, and this is just
what's happening, I said with that, Ken, I said they
have a job, you don't. I said I want you to leave the
plant immediately." Kvingedal testified that he did
not remember whether or not Prue denied making
the threats, but' he thought that he remembered
that Prue had said he did not threaten anybody, but
that was all. Kvingedal did admit in his testimony
that he had held up his hand to shut up Prue. Kvin-
gedal testified that his decision to discharge Prue
on January 23 came after he spoke with Vicky
Dow. He testified that after making the decision to
discharge Prue, he called Prue to his office,
although normally -he would have consulted cards
or records of an individual before discharge, but
that he did not do it in this case. Kvingedal testified
that the two things that really prompted him into
discharging Prue were the charges of Guyette and
Vicky Dow concerning the incidents in which they
were allegedly threatened by Prue.
Kenneth Prue testified that on January 23, 1967,
in the morning between 9:30 and 9:40 he was ap-
proached by Curtis who said that Prue was wanted
down at the office. Prue went to Walker's office: In
the office at that time was Kvingedal, the general
manager ; Walker, the assistant general - manager;
Prue's supervisor , Beaton ; and Prue's foreman,
Curtis. According to Prue, Kvingedal asked Prue -if
he remembered Kvingedal's speech about no
threatening in the mill. Prue said no one was
threatened but Kvingedal went on to say that he
was doing the talking. As he said this Kvingedal, ac-
cording to` Prue, put out his hand with his paten-for-
ward to -shut Prue up. According to Prue, at this
point Kvingedal informed him that Kvingedal pos-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sessed signed statements stating that Prue had
threatened individuals in the plant and that as, far as
Kvingedal was concerned, Prue was all through.
Everyone got up, Kvingedal walked out, and every-
one started for the door. As Prue got to the door he
asked Beaton if this meant he was fired and Beaton
said he guessed so. Prue then asked for -his check
and was told that he would have to wait for his
check because it had to go through the IBM
machine. Beaton asked Curtis to go upstairs-and get
Prue's jacket; Prue, however, went up behind him.
Curtis took Prue's jacket off the hook; Prue took
the jacket from him and walked out the door.
Prue denied threatening any employee in order
to get him to sign an authorization card for the
Union. Prue also denied telling any employee that
he or she would lose his job if he did not sign an
authorization card. There was considerable
testimony spread on the record going to the
question of whether or not Prue was prone to be a
brawler and indicating Prue's involvement in
several so-called brawling incidents. However, in
his testimony Prue gave reasonable explanations of
these incidents and I am persuaded and find no
basis on this record for concluding that Prue was a
confirmed brawler who might be disposed to
threats.
Based on my careful observation of the
demeanor of the witness Prue, as he testified, I am
persuaded that Prue testified in a straightforward
and honest manner and I credit his testimony.
While there is no doubt -in my -mind that Prue "-
talked up the Union" and undoubtedly made state-
ments indicating arguments in favor of bringing the
Union into the plant and urging employees to join, I
am convinced on this record that Prue did not in
fact threaten either Guyette or Mrs. Dow. While it
is true that Prue's testimony is contradicted by-that
of Guyette and Dow I have already indicated that,
based on my observation of the demeanor of wit-
nesses Guyette and Dow, the variations in their
testimony, and-the contradiction of their testimony
by credible testimony of record, I do not find their
testimony persuasive and' I do not credit' their ver-
sions. I find ample testimony of record to indicate
that the actions of Kvingedal on the, morning of
January 23, at which time he summarily and hastily
discharged Prue on the basis of an inquiry con-
ducted in a partial and superficial manner, without
giving Prue an opportunity to meet the charges of
to otherwise explain the situation, indeed cutting
off his attempt to explain, were such that I may
only conclude that the discharge was discrimina-
torily motivated, and that the reason advanced by
Kvingedal in the discharge of Prue was a pretext se-
ized upon by the Respondent to conceal the actual
motive for the discharge and that Prue would- not
have been discharged but for his union and other
concerted activity, all of which were protected by
the Act. Shell Oil Co. v. N.L.R.B., 128 F.2d 206
(C.A. 5). Even assuming, arguendo, that"-Guyette
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC. 227
and Dow had relayed information to Kvingedal
clearly indicating threats by Prue, and that Kvin-
gedal did in fact have an honest belief in the truth
of the statements of Guyette and Dow, I would
nevertheless find the discharge an interference,
restraint, and coercion with the employees of the
Respondent in the exercise of protected activity
and a violation of Section 8(a)(1). For whatever
the Employer's motive, as stated by the Court in
N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims Inc., 379 U.S. 21 at 23
"§ 8(a)(1) is violated if it is shown that the
discharged employee was at the time engaged in a
protected activity, that the employer knew it was
such, that the basis of the discharge was an alleged
act of misconduct in the course of that activity, and
that the employee was not, in fact, guilty of that
misconduct. In any event, having found that Prue
did not in fact threaten Guyette and Dow as alleged
by the Respondent as the basis for the discharge, I
find accordingly that the Respondent by the
discharge of Prue discouraged membership in the
Union by discrimination in regard to his tenure of
employment, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, and by the same act interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of protected activity thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Other Alleged Acts of Interference , Restraint,
and Coercion
The General Counsel additionally alleges that the
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by the following
acts ; (a) interrogation of employees concerning
union activities by, Supervisor Gilfillan on or about
December 4, 1967, and January 9, 1967; (b) creat-
ing the impression of surveillance of union activities
and interrogating employees concerning union ac-
tivities by Supervisor William Curtis on or about
January 18, 1967;,(c) the offer , promise , and grant
of a wage increase to its employees for the purpose
of discouraging membership in or assistance to the
Union by Supervisor and Agent Bjarne Kvingedal
on or about January 16, 1967; (d) maintaining a
rule forbidding--distribution of, literature, either
written or printed, on the Respondent 's premises
without written authorization.
1. The alleged; interrogation of employees by Frank
Gilfillan
Jerry Prue, an employee of the Respondent, and
no relative of the Kenneth Prue herein , testified es-
sentially that , around the time that Kvingedal gave
his speech to the employees which was sometime
late in November he,, Jerry Prue, had had a discus-
:sion , with Gilfillan, a foreman of the Respondent,
who ' spoke to him while Jerry Prue was working
and asked Prue if he knew anything about the
Union. Prue answered in the negative. Gilfillan then
asked him if he was going to a meeting in Morgan
Center that night and Prue again answered in the
negative. Gilfillan in his version denied ever having
this conversation with Prue. The contradicting ver-
sions of Jerry Prue and Gilfillan raise a credibility
question. I do not credit the version of Jerry Prue.
In discrediting his testimony I took into account not
only his demeanor while testifying but also the lack
of coherence in his testimony. In fixing the time the
alleged interrogation took place Prue testified as
follows:
Q. Is there any event, perhaps, that might
fix the date in your mind?
A. I know it was on a Monday, because
there was supposed to have been a union meet-
ing that same, following night.
Prue testified further that he did not know there
was to have been a meeting in Morgan Center at
the time that Gilfillan spoke to him, stating that this
was the first time he had heard anything about the
Union. Based upon my observation of the
demeanor of the witness Jerry Prue as he testified
and based upon the obvious fact clear on the
record herein that union activity was a prime topic
of conversation in the mill at the time, I simply do
not credit his statement that he did not know of the
union meeting to be held at Morgan Center. I dis-
credit Jerry Prue's version of the conversation with
Gilfillan.
With respect to Larry Broe , also an employee of
the Respondent-Broe testified essentially that
sometime around January 9, in the afternoon, Gil-
fillan spoke to him while he was working and asked
him if he was going to the union meeting that night
at Newport. This conversation was directly denied
by Gilfillan. Based on my observation of the
demeanor of the witness as he testified, I credit the
testimony of Broe. I find, therefore, that the charge
of the complaint alleging interrogation by Gilfillan
of Jerry Prue has not been proven by substantial,
probative evidence of record, and recommend that
this portion of the complaint be dismissed and I
find that the Respondent by Supervisor Gilfillan did
interrogate employee Broe_ in violation of Section
8(a)(1) as alleged in the complaint.
2. The creation of the impression of surveillance of
union activities and interrogation by William Curtis
According to Kenneth- Prue, Curtis approached
him shortly before his discharge and stated that he
had heard that the employees needed only 20 more
cards to get the Union in. Curtis denied this re-
mark . In his testimony Curtis also denied hearing
any, talk in the mill about the union meeting
although it was a matter of discussion in the mill at
the time. Based on my observation of the demeanor
of, the witness- Kenneth Prue , as he testified and the
demeanor of the witness Curtis as he testified, I
credit Prue's testimony in this regard and I find ,that
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Curtis made the remark as alleged by Prue. I find
this to constitute an interrogation and that this in-
terrogation, coming, as was indicated on the
record, against a background of discussions
between Curtis and other management supervisors
on the topic of the union campaign, a prime topic
at the mill, and directed to a key figure in the or-
ganizing activity, clearly gave the impression that
the Respondent was engaged in surveillance of
union activities. Accordingly, I find that through
this statement by William Curtis, on or about
January 18, 1967, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The alleged offer, promise, and grant of a wage
increase
The General Counsel alleges further that the
Respondent on or about January 16, by Supervisor
Bjarne Kvingedal, offered, promised, and granted a
wage increase to its employees for the purpose of
discouraging membership in or assistance to the
Union. In this connection the record indicates that
the Respondent promised an increase in wages and
benefits on January 16, 1967, effective February 1.
There was testimony by Kvingedal indicating that
the increase was based on the increase in minimum
wages required under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in the summer of 1966. Kvingedal testified that be-
fore the advice to the employees dated January 16
which notified them of the changes and improve-
ments effective February 1, 1967, discussions were
held by Kvingedal and various management person-
nel including Walker, the production manager and
Charles Maran, the plant engineer. Kvingedal also
testified that he had additional conversations on the
matter with Mr. Clinton Walker who was located in
New York City. Kvingedal testified that the deci-
sion to effectuate the increases was made sometime
in December but it was not until January that they
"wrapped it up." Kvingedal testified that he
discussed the benefits and meeting the Fair Labor
Standard Act requirements with Mr. Walker in July
and August of that year on various visits to New
York City by Kvingedal or visits to Newport by
Clinton Walker. Kvingedal testified additionally ex-
plaining the reason for granting benefits not only to
the day-rate employees but to the incentive-rate
employees.
There is no question that the employees were
notified of the increased benefits on January 16,
1967, and were granted benefits as alleged. The
question is whether or not, as the General Counsel
contends, the Respondent's actions were for the
purpose of discouraging membership in or
assistance to the Union. The record indicates and it
is not contradicted that prior to the time the
benefits were promised to the employees on Janua-
ry 16, 1967, the Respondent had discussed the in-
creases in various management meetings in which
concern was expressed for the fact that the new
minimum wage scale required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act would have to be applied effective
February 1, 1967, without "pricing us out of the
market." The General Counsel urges that, from the
inconsistency evidenced by the Respondent's con-
cern for pricing itself out of the market and the fact
that it granted benefits in excess of that required by
the Act, it be found that the benefits were granted
for the purpose of discouraging membership in or
assistance to the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I am not able to so conclude on
the basis of the testimony of this record. The
Respondent established clearly on this record a
valid economic action stemming from a reasoned
approach to meeting the requirements of the
minimum wage law.
The grant of benefits in excess of that required
by law, even though accomplished under circum-
stances giving concern lest the producer be priced
out of the market and even where the grant is made
at a time when a segment of the employee comple-
ment is being laid off due to a lack of backlog, does
not necessarily represent an inconsistency, as urged
by the General Counsel herein, particularly where
reasonably explained by uncontroverted testimony
of record, and accordingly provides no basis for
establishing improper motivation. The General
Counsel cites The Bedford-Nugent Corp., 137 NLRB
1030, which I found not applicable. There the
record revealed the Respondent's motivation
through his actions in inquiring of the employees as
to the amount of the benefits which they expected,
and the timing of the grant of the benefits, on the
very day of the Union's attempt to achieve recogni-
tion, so as to clearly relate the grant to a counterac-
tion of the union activity. I do not find that situa-
tion herein. I do not find substantial credible
evidence of record to overcome the reasonable
basis for the offer, announcement, and grant of the
benefits advanced by the Respondent herein and
accordingly do not find that these actions were
taken for the purpose of discouraging membership
in or assistance to the Union as charged in the com-
plaint. I will recommend that that portion of the
complaint be dismissed.
B. The Rule Forbidding Distribution of Literature
The General Counsel further alleges that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees by maintaining a rule forbidding distribu-
tion of literature either written or printed on
Respondent's premises without written authoriza-
tion. The rule as published by the Respondent pro-
vides that distribution of written or printed litera-
ture on company premises without written
authorization is cause for disciplinary action. The
record establishes the fact that the rule is published
in an employee booklet passed out to all em-
ployees.
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC. 229
It is well established that the no-solicitation and
no-distribution rules which prohibit union solicita-
tion or distribution of union literature on company
property by employees during their nonworking
time are presumptively invalid unless the employer
can demonstrate special circumstances establishing
the rule as necessary in order to maintain produc-
tion or discipline. Walton Manufacturing Company,
126 NLRB 697; Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing
Co., 138 NLRB 615.
While the Respondent herein asserts the ex-
istence of such special circumstances I do not find
such circumstances to have been established on the
record herein. Kvingedal testified essentially that
the rule was based on a safety consideration, and
on considerations involving continuity of produc-
tion, stating that if small papers were distributed
and then dropped on the floor, "it can't be swept
up, and we have elderly men, they have to stoop
down and pick all this stuff up." Kvingedal stated
that, these papers could sometimes slip into the
blower having the effect of plugging up the boiler
system, and also amounted to a fire hazard in the
event it is ignited'by the heat in the blower. I find
this attempt by-the Respondent to assert as the ra-
tionale for the rule the existence of potential inter-
ference with production or potential fire hazard to
be totally unconvincing.
The Respondent argued additionally that the
Union had ample means for getting literature into
the hands of the employees other than on company
property, citing N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell Manufactur-
ing Company (Dubois Division), 271 F.2d 109
(C.A. 3). However, the record herein does not
establish the existence of a situation involving the
enforcement of the broad no-distribution rule for
the ' purpose of maintaining discipline in the plant.
Accordingly, I find that by the maintenance of the
no'-distribution rule herein the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
2. The United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Kenneth Prue
because of his union activity the Respondent en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8( a)(3) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By creating the impression of surveillance of
union activities, by interrogating employees relative
to protected activity, and by maintaining a rule for-
bidding distribution of literature in the nonworking
areas of the Employer's premises on nonworking
time, the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act and thereby vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not interrogate employee
Jerry Prue through Supervisor Frank Gilfillan in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) as charged in the com-
plaint.
7. The Respondent did not offer, promise, and
grant a wage increase to its employees for the pur-
pose of discouraging membership in and assistance
to the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) as
charged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that the Company cease and
desist from violating Section 8(a)(1)-and (3), that
it reinstate Kenneth Prue with backpay computed
in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & -Heating
Co., 1 ,38 NLRB 716, and that ' it rescind without
delay, the broad no-distribution rule published in
the employee booklet. .
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act
the issuance of the following:
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion Ill[, above, occurring in connection with its
operations set forth in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc., is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
The Respondent, Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc., Orleans,
Vermont, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any employee because of membership or
activity in United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees as to
their union activity or that of fellow employees,
creating the impression that union meetings are
being kept under surveillance, maintaining a rule
forbidding distribution of literature on the Respond-
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent's premises without authorization, or in any
other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing any employee in the exercise of his right to join
or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from so
doing.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Kenneth Prue to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole, in the manner described in the portion
of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him.
(b) Notify Kenneth Prue if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right
to reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military, Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its, agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records and reports and all
other records necessary to ascertain the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Recommended
Order.
(d) Rescind without delay the broad no-distribu-
tion rule as published in the employee booklet.
(e) Post at its Orleans plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix ." Copies of said
notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being signed by a duly authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily displayed.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found herein.
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree-of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
' In the event that this Recommended -Order is adopted by the Board,
this,provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as,amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging any of our employees. Nor will we
discourage membership in said Union or any
other labor organization by discriminating
against any of our employees in regard to their
hire, tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of their employment.
- WE WILL NOT coercively ask employees
questions about their union activities, sym-
pathies, and desires, or those of other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of sur-
veillance of union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner' interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Kenneth Prue immediate
and full reinstatement to his former position or
one substantially equivalent thereto, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed by him. We will
also pay him whatever loss of , pay he may have
suffered as a result of his discharge by us, with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL rescind without delay the broad no
distribution rule as published in the employee'
booklet.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
the above-named United Furniture Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: We will notify Kenneth Prue if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
his right to full reinstatement -upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
ORLEANS MFG. CO., INC. 231
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- communicate directly with the Board's Regional
tive days from the date of posting and must not be Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Build-
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. ing, Cambridge and New Sudbury Street, Boston,
If employees have any question concerning this Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3330.
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may