Palmer-Bee Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 492 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of PALDMER-BEE COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORXERS
OF AMERICA, CIO
c
Case No. 5-C-1793.-Decided January 16, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 25,1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report, briefs, orrrequest
for oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., were there-
after filed with the Board. The Board has reviewed the rulings made
by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the entire
record in the case. As previously noted, the respondent has filed no
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board, accordingly,
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Palmer-Bee Company,
Detroit, Michigan, and its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging concerted activity and membership in United
Steelworkers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of
its employees,, by laying off or refusing to reinstate any of its employ-
ees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
65 N. L R. B., No 83.
492
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 493
labor organizations , to join or assist United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activ-
ities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. `
2. Take the following afrmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Marvin H. Adams, James P. Branch, William G. Hob-
son, Elmer J. Kenney, Carl T. McCormick, Oscar G. McMillan, Earl L.
Moses, Luther F. Reich, and Charlie Wall immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions in the
manner set forth in Section V, "The remedy," of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the 25 employees listed below for any loss of pay
they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount he normally would have earned as wages during the period
from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him to the
date of the respondent 's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such period :
Marvin H. Adams Robert E. Knouse
Burres E. Blizzard Carl T. McCormick
James P. Branch Oscar G. McMillan
Roy E . Brewer Earl L. Moses
John W. Cooksey John W. Myers
Carl E. Enscore Luther F. Reich
William H . Farmer Sam S. Smith
Wesley L. Fountain Granville Stringer
Harry R. Gray Haywood M. Taylor
Bernie Gulledge Charlie Wall
William G. Hobson Joe C. White
Richard D. Hutchins John B. Simmons
Elmer J . Kenney
(c) Post at its plants at Winston -Salem, and Kernersville, North
Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region shall, after being duly signed by the respondent 's repre-
sentative , be posted by the respondent immediately upon the receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HEI:zoo took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the following named employees, Marvin H.
Adams, James P. Branch, William G. Hobson. Elmer J. Kenney,
Carl T. McCornuck, Oscar G. McMillan, Earl L. Moses, Luther F.
Reich and Charlie Wall, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
and make them, and the following named employees, whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them :
Burres E. Blizzard Richard D. Hutchins
Roy E. Brewer Robert E. Knouse
John W. Cookpey John W. Myers
Carl E. Enscore Sam S. Smith
William H. Farmer Granville Stringer
Wesley L. Fountain Haywood M. Taylor
Harry R. Gray Joe C. White
Bernie Gulledge John B. Simmons
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
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 495
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By -------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after
discharge from the armed forces.
This'notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Sidney J. Barban and George L. Weasler , for the Board.
Womble, Carlyle , Martin d Sandrtidge, of Winston-Salem, N C., by Mr. W. E.
Sandridge , for the respondent.
Mr. E. L. Sandefur , of Winston-Salem, N C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on December 19, 1944, by United Steel-
workers of America, CIO, herein called the Union , the National Labor Relations
Board , herein called the Board , by its Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore , Maryland ), issued its complaint dated March 12,1945, against Palmer-
Bee Company , herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had
engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the ` Act. Copies of the complaint,
the amended charge, and notice of consolidated hearing' were duly served upon
the respondent, the Union , and the International Association of Machinists.2
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint as subsequently
amended ' alleged in substance that the respondent : ( 1) questioned its employees
concerning their union activities and affiliation ; threatened them with economic
i The notice advised the respondent that pursuant to an order of the Board dated March
28, 1945, a consolidated hearing was to be held on the allegations set forth in the com-
plaint in this case and on the objections to the election conducted in Case No . 5-R-1594
which was instituted by the Union by the filing of a petition for investigation and certifica-
tion. On May 18, 1945 , the Board pursuant to Article III, Section 13 (c) (4 ) and Article
II, Section 36 (d) of the Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended , ordered that Cases
Nos. 5-R-1594 and 5-C-1793 he severed , and granted the Union 's request to withdraw its
petition in Case No . 5-R-1594, further ordering that the aforesaid case be closed.
2 Although the International Association of Machinists was not a party to this proceed-
ing, they were served with the formal papers in view of the fact that they had previously
filed a petition for investigation and certification of representatives for respondent's em-
plovees , and had indicated their interest in the ultimate disposition of the charges herein.
Mr Cy Chisholm , secretary of Lodge 641 , International Association of Machinists appeared
at the hearing, and stated on the record that he was present solely as an "unofficial
observer."
2 During the course of the hearing counsel for the Board moved, without objection, to
amend the complaint to strike the names Tom Tolbert and Charles L. Murphy, and to add
the name of John B . Simmons to "Appendix A." The Trial Examiner granted this motion.
I
679100-46-vol. 65--33
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reprisals if they joined or assisted the Union; (2) kept under surveillance its
employees with the purpose of ascertaining their activities in behalf of the Union;
(3) urged them to deal directly with the respondent and to refrain from engaging
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection; (4) urged, induced, and warned its employees to renounce and
repudiate the Union at an election conducted by the Board on July 14, 1944;
(5) on or about June 30, 1944, laid off 25 named employees for the purpose of
discouraging and preventing said employees from engaging in concerted activity
and from voting for the Union at an election conducted by the Board on July
14, 1944, and thereafter reinstated 16 named employees,and refused to reinstate
9 of them, to discourage concerted activity and to prevent them from giving
any aid or assistance to the Union; and (6) by the aforesaid acts has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
On March 31, 1945, the respondent filed an answer admitting the jurisdictional
allegations of the complaint, but denying the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on
April 17 and 18, 1945, before Sidney Lindner, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and the Union by its representative. All parties
participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. At the close of the Board's case, motion by respondent's counsel for
dismissal of the complaint was denied ; this motion was renewed at the close
of the evidence, at which time ruling was reserved. The motion is hereby denied.
A motion of counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the evidence
adduced, with respect to formal matters, was granted without objection. At the
close of the hearing, counsel for the Board and for the respondent argued orally
before the undersigned, the arguments appearing in the official transcript. The
parties were advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned within
12 days from the close of the hearing. Subsequently, the undersigned extended
the time. On May 10, counsel for the Board filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Palmer-Bee Company, a Michigan corporation, with its principal offices in
Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in the business of manufacturing conveyors, speed
reducers, gears, and power transmitting machinery. It has production plants
in Detroit, in Indiana, and in Winston-Salem and Kernersville, North Carolina.
The Winston-Salem and Kernersville, North Carolina, plants are the only plants
of the respondent involved in these proceedings The respondent in the conduct
of its business operations at its North Carolina plants purchases annually raw
materials having a value in excess of $50,000, of which more than 25 percent is
shipped to the plants from sources outside the State of North Carolina The
respondent at its North Carolina plants annually manufactures products having
a value in excess of $50,000, of which approximately 90 percent is sold and shipped
to points outside the State of North Carolina..
The respondent admitted at the hearing that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
497
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of
the respondent.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary statement
The details hereinafter related arose within the framework of these general
facts: In April 1944, several of respondent's employees interested in forming
a union communicated with E. L. Sandefur, regional director of the CIO for
the Carolinas, who suggested that the most active and responsible employees
meet at his office to discuss at greater length the matter of organization. Such
a meeting was held on April 29, and was attended by seven employees' and
Sandefur.' The seven, after signing applications for membership in the Union,
constituted themselves an organizing committee and took with them a number
of applications to enroll employees as union members Within the next few
days, 55 to 65 applications for membership, signed by respondent's employees,
were received by Sandefur. A registered letter dated May 17, 1944, was then
sent to the respondent by the Union requesting that it be accepted as the col-
lective bargaining agent for respondent's production employees, with certain
exclusions' Receiving no reply, the Union, on May 22, filed a petition for in-
vestigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) , of
the Act.' A conference to discuss the petition was held on June 6, at the re-
spondent 's office. ' Proposals and counterproposals were submitted by the par-
ties, who finally arrived at all of the terms of a consent election agreement °
except the date, upon which the parties could not agree." The Regional Director
thereupon issued a Notice of Hearing for June 23, but cancelled the hearing
when the parties notified him on June 21 that they had agreed on the terms and
date for an election. On June 23, the parties entered into a stipulation for cer-
tification upon a consent election to be conducted on July 14. On June 30, the
4 The seven were Brewer, Cooksey, Davis, Faust, Poore, James Moses, and Gray
' The meeting was held in Sandefur 's office.
It appeared thereafter that there were approximately 133 employees in the proposed
appropriate unit.
Case No. 5-R-1594.
Present at the conference were Sandefur and Boyer representing the Union ; Davidson,
general manager of the respondent , representing the respondent ; and Eugene Curry, Field
Examiner of the Board.
O The petition in Case No 5-R-1594 supra , referred only to the Winston -Salem plant,
and during the discussion the respondent sought to include its Kernersvilie plant in the
appropriate unit This was agreed to by the Union Flours of the election, the number
of observers, the eligibility date, and other details for the consent election were agreed
upon.
10 The , Union suggested June 16 as the date for the election ; the respondent would not
agree stating that it had to have time to think it over. At a later conference , beld the
same day, at which Mr. Sandridge , respondent 's attorney , was present , Davidson advised
that he was leaving for Texas that evening and that he would have to see respondent's,
officials in the Detroit office before he could enter into any agreement as to the date
for the consent election. Sandridge , on June 7, forwarded the proposed stipulation for
certification upon consent election to respondent 's Detroit office for the purpose of per-
mitting the Detroit executives to consider the matter and confer and act upon it after
Davidson arrived there about June 16.
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent laid-off 25 men" from the hatch and scuttle department. The re,
spondent had not mentioned the prospect of any lay-offs at any time during the
conferences. On July 14, the election was held, resulting in a tie vote ^ with
four ballots challenged " By protest to election, dated July 19, 1944, the Union
filed with the Regional Director objections to the conduct of the election, alleg-
ing that the respondent had committed certain acts of interference which affected
the results of the election. On July 20, the Union filed the original charge
herein The respondent filed its answer to the Union's objections on July 29
Acting pursuant to Section 10 of Article III of the Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director investigated the issues raised by the challenges and on August
15, recommended that the challenged ballots be opened and counted. The Board
on September 7, issued its "Decision and Direction," which was amended on
September 12, and pursuant thereto the four challenged ballots declared valid
by the Board were opened and counted. 14 The final results of the election dis-
closed that a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit had voted against
the participating union. On December 20, the Union filed an Amended Charge.
Thereafter the complaint herein was issued on March 12. Hearing was scheduled
on the complaint for April 17, 1945. On March 16, 1945, the Regional Director,
as a result of his investigation of the "Objections", issued a "Supplemental Report
on Objections to Stipulated Election" finding in effect that the acts and conduct
of the respondent during the period preceding the election prevented an expres-
sion by its employees of their free and uncoerced wishes as to representation,
and recommending that the Board vacate and set aside the election and direct
that a new election be held after the respondent's unfair labor practices have
been dissipated. Thereafter, on March 28, 1945, the Board ordered a hearing on
the "Objections to Election" and further ordered that the representation pro-
ceeding and,the unfair labor practice proceeding be consolidated for the purpose
of hearing.'°
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
As heretofore found, organizational activities among respondent's emplol ees
began in April 1944. Sandefur, after determining the interest of Poore and
Cooksey,16 in organizing a union, urged them to seek out some of the most active
and responsible employees of respondent, who would furnish the basis for an
11 As will be hereinafter noted, the parties at the hearing, by stipulation, agreed that
26 men were laid-off from the hatch and scuttle department on June 30 The amended
complaint names only 25 men.
12 The results of the election were as follows
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------------- 133
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------------- 96
Votes east for United Steelworkers of America CIO-------------------------- 48
Votes cast against United Steelworkers of America CIO----------------------- 48
Challenged ballots ------------------------------------------------------- 4
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------------ 0
13 The respondent challenged 4 employees who appeared at the polls on the ground that
all ' 4 had been permanently laid off since May 31, 1944 , ( the eligibility date agreed upon)
and not rehired These 4 men were among the group of 26 laid off from the hatch and
scuttle department on June 30.
14 This was done on September 15. -
1' See footnote 1, supra, whereby the Board by order dated May 18, 1945, severed the
representation and unfair labor practice proceedings , and further of tiered that the repre-
sentation proceeding case be closed.
16 Two of respondent 's employees who started the Union movement at the plant by
requesting Sandefur to call on them to discuss the question of forming a union among
the employees
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 499
organizational committee, and arranged for a meeting to be held at his office
on April 29.
Upon learning the time and place of this meeting, Thompson, general super-
intendent of respondent's Winston-Salem plant, requested Holcomb, foreman of
welding, to ascertain who attended the meeting. The following morning Hol-
comb reported to Thompson. He told Thompson where he had parked his car
and that he had seen six or seven of respondent's employees go into the Nissen
Building where the meeting was being held 17
Sometime before the consent election, Thompson, in the presence of Holcomb
and Moser, asked Sumner, a stockroom clerk, and Jones, the toolroom keeper,"
to let him (Thompson) know what they found out about union activities.19
Neither Sumner nor Jones made any report to Thompson before the election.
Three or four days after the election, however; Jones, in the presence of several
other employees, told Thompson that he knew "which way the negroes voted
because of the grease they had on their hands was on the ballots." 20 Thompson
did not say anything at that time, but later said "that Davidson, [general
manager of respondent's plants] wanted to run all the negroes off" but Thomp-
son did not think that it was a good idea and told him so.21
In the latter part of May or early in June 1944, Thompson suggested to Moser
that lie take a poll of the employees on the question of "how they felt about the
Union, if they wanted one or not." Moser testified that on the day the sug-
gestion was made to him, he went to each employee with the exception of those
in the press shop, while they were wor!ing, asked each whether he wanted a
union, and noted the answer on a scratch pad 2' Upon completing the poll,
Moser showed the tally sheet to Thompson and left it on Thompson's desk."
On June 30, the employees of the hatch and scuttle department named in the
Boaid's complaint were laid off.2f
17 This finding is based upon the undisputed testimony of Robert J. Moser which the
undersigned credits. Moser was no longer in the respondent 's employ at the time of the
hearing He testified under subpoena for the Board stating that if it were not for the fact
that a subpoena had been served on him, he would not have testified if he "could have
gotten out of it."
Moser while in respondent's employ was an inspector of welding and assistant to
foreman Holcomb He testified that in addition to his inspection duties lie kept the weld-
ing lines equalized and saw to it that the materials went through the lines in equal
amounts and at the right times Thirty men worked under him, and from time to time
lie made transfers of men from one line working on hatches, to another line working on
si uttles and vice-versa when either line fell behind Although he did not have authority
to fire, lie made recommendations for the discharge of men to Holcomb or Thompson, and
seveial men were in fact laid off on his ieconimendation He also made recommenda-
tions for pay increases for the men, one of which he remembered was granted , and if an
employee asked him for a day off, he would give it to him The undeisigned finds that
Moser was a supervisory employee
Moser testified that he was present in Thompson's office when Holcomb was requested
to see who attended the meeting, and was there on the following morning when Holcomb
repoited to Thompson Neither Holcomb nor Thompson was called as a witness although
both were available. Thompson was seated at respondent's counsel table throughout the
heni mg, and helped counsel to obtain several exhibits
1s It was not claimed that either Jones or Sumner was a supervisory employee.
28 Thompson spoke to these men individually in his office on different occasions
20 Jones and Sunnier acted as observers for the respondent in the counting and tabulat-
ing of ballots in the consent election conducted by the Board on July 14
21 This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Moser, which the undersigned
credits.
21 The names of the eniplovees did not appeai on the paper, only their answers of yes
or no
" Moser 's testimony in this regard was undisputed and is credited by the undersigned.
24 The lay-off will be discussed more fully in the next sub-division of this Report.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the afternoon of July 14, the date of the consent election, and only several
hours before the time scheduled for the opening of the polls,26 Davidson called
the employees together 20 on company time and read a prepared statement as
follows :
Today is an important day for all of us. I have called you together at
this time to explain the election which will be held later this afternoon as
well as to briefly outline to you the background and policies of the company
you are working with.
Palmer-Bee Company is comparatively new to all of you. That is because
we have only recently moved into your midst. Palmer-Bee Company was
founded 40 years ago in Detroit by Mr. William E. Bee, the father of Mr.
George A. Bee who is now our President. Through the 40 years of Palmer-
Bee's business history, it has grown from a small organization of 25 men
to the country's outstanding manufacturer of conveying equipment. This
growth was made possible by the company's honest and sincere effort to
produce the best equipment at a fair and honest price and to treat its custo-
mers and employees with respect and fairness.
About two years ago the Directors of this company decided to move its
Light Conveyor Division from Detroit to some other place because the real
estate taxes on our property in Detroit was becoming prohibitive. Under
such conditions we were not able to manufacture conveyors at a price that
would put us in a price range with our competit`o'rs. In searching for a new
home for this Division, the Directors decided upon Winston-Salem because
of its low tax rate and because of its 100% American population. In large
industrial areas, such as Detroit, one finds a majority of the working popula-
tion to be foreign born and such a group of people do not have the true
American sense of responsibility to his neighbor and to his fellow worker.
Here in Winston-Salem, we felt that we had found just such a community ;
a community of 100% native born Americans, people who proudly speak of
their forefathers as founders and early settlers of this community. Among
these people, Palmer-Bee was both proud and happy to cast its lot.
Most of you have seen the construction progress and the program of ma-
chinery installation. Right now, we are ready to unload and install a large
Brake Press for forming steel plate. You all have noticed this piece of
machinery on the flat car out on the siding. Somewhere between here and
Detroit, there is another carload of machinery which we expect to arrive
here at our Plant on next Monday. Last week, while in Detroit, Mr. Bee
approved my request for additional machinery and within the next 30 to 60
days, we will receive and install here in this Plant, 15 more carloads of
machinery. I mention this as a way of telling you that Palmer-Bee Company
is backing its bet on Winston-Salem with dollars and that we want to be
happy here so that both you and the company can rightfully prosper.
About 5 or 6 weeks ago , we were notified by the National Labor Relations
Board that a certain group, who claimed to represent a majority of our
employees, wanted Palmer-Bee Company to sign a contract with them so
that they could act as your only representative in respect to rate of pay,
hours of work and all other conditions of employment. The company an-
25 The stipulation for certification upon consent election provided for the election at the
Kernersville plant from 3: 30 p m . to 4 • 00 p m , and at the Winston-Salem plant from
5 : 00 p. in . to 6 : 30 p . m. Davidson's talk was made at 2 : 05 p. m.
2e Davidson addressed only the Winston-Salem plant employees who numbered about 120
There were only 20 to 30 employees in the Kernersville plant.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 501
swei cd this letter by saying that it did not think that this group represented
a majority of you employees The company has consented to an election
so that you could express your choice in this matter, by means of a secret
ballot The fact that the company agreed to this election without going
through hearings before the National Labor Relations Board does not mean
that it desires that you should vote for or against the union, but it simply
means that the company felt that it would be better for everyone concerned
if an election by secret ballot were held to decide this matter.
This election will decide whether you wish to place your leadership with
outside people who have no connection with the plant or with the manage-
ment of this company. To what kind of leadership are you going to place
your future with the company? Is that leadership unselfish or is it not?
Is that leadership interested in you individually and the welfare of your
family, or is it seeking advantage for itself? On the basis of its past
iecord, is it open and above board and dependable? You should ask your-
selves why all of a sudden, total strangers have become interested in your
welfare. Just who are these strangers? Where do they come from and
what have they done? What more can they do for you than you have
already done for yourselves? Ask yourselves whether or not those of us
who have built this plant, who have installed the machinery and who have
provided you with jobs are not more sincerely interested in your welfare
and will do for you in the long run, more than people who have no financial
stake in this Plant and who have never worked here. Do you believe that
your position can be improved by choosing someone else for your leadership?
It has been the company's policy to upgrade employees from one classi-
fication to another as rapidly as they have become proficient enough to
assume greater responsibility. This upgrading has, as you all know, im-
proved your earning power. In the past year, many of you personally know
that one or more raises in wages has been granted. Ifyou select the union
as your sole bargaining agent, it will have the authority to speak for all of
you and to bind you for the length of any contract which it may make with
the company. You will not be able to bargain for yourself. All such mat-
ters will have to be handled and settled with the union. Do you want to
surrender your'right to bargain for yourselves and pay the union to bargain
for you?
Nov the question is whether, in the long run, you will be better off under
the policies of the company or under the leadership of the union. In this
connection, you should remember that the union contracts are for a definite
period of time, usually one year and during that time, the company's hands
are tied by the union's terms of the contract.
This election will be by secret ballot and will be conducted in a fair
and impartial manner and will give you absolute freedom to express your
choice without any coercion. No one can know by any means how you
vote. Some of you may wonder if your preference as expressed at any
time in the past must govern how you vote today. It does not have to do so.
This election is by secret ballot so that you can record your vote according
to your desires at the time you enter the booth without fear or favor.
You have the right to vote in accordance with your own decision, regardless
whether or not you belong to any group or whether or not you have signed
an application card or anything else. It is tremendously important that
every eligible employee shall vote because that is the only way you can
register your wishes in this matter. Furthermore, the outcome of the
election will be determined by a majority of those voting. Therefore, if you
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are an eligible voter and do not vote, it will be the same as letting someone
else decide this question for you. Lets make this election really represent the
choice of everyone. It takes only one vote more than half of all those voting
to decide this very important question.
In conclusion, I want to assure every employee of this company that I
have no desire to persuade a single one of you to vote other than as your
own judgment tells you, for your own best interest. I urge you to consider
all the facts, then vote as you honestly think.
The election resulted in a tie vote for and against the Union, with four ballots
challenged. The following morning, Davidson asked Moser if he could find
out how the men, whose ballots were challenged,' had voted. Davidson told
Moser not to see Davis because he knew how he voted 28 Moser then left the
plant during working hours ; he saw Knouse at the latter's home, Taylor at
the hotel where he was living, and Gulledge on his job; 29 Moser inquired of
each one how he voted. All three told him they voted against the Union; Knouse
and Taylor said they did so because they wanted to come back to work for the
respondent, and Gulledge for the reason that he did not believe in organization.
Upon his return to the plant that afternoon, Moser reported to Davidson what
the men had told him, whereupon Davidson said he would take them back and
he told Moser to let the men know they could come back to work on Monday 30
Concluding findings
The facts related above show that the respondent, upon learning of the em-
ployees' efforts to organize, immediately started a campaign to defeat them. The
surveillance of the union meeting, the interrogation of employees concerning their
feelings about the Union, and the lay-off of the men in the hatch and scuttle de-
partment two weeks before the Board election, were the means employed by the
respondent to discourage its employees from becoming members of, or giving aid
or assistance to, the Union.
Carrying on its anti-union campaign until several hours before the Board elec-
tion, the respondent addressed the employees regarding the importance of the
election. The talk clearly posed a spurious issue between voting for the Union and
loyalty to the respondent. That was not the issue to be decided at the election.
The only question involved in the election was whether the employees wanted to
designate a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. "An election
is not a contest between a labor organization and the employer of the employees
being polled." 31
Realizing that the results of the election hung in the balance because of the four
challenged ballots, the respondent on the morning following the election deter-
mined to find out how three of the four had voted. The respondent was reasonably
certain how Davis had voted because of his union activity and because he had
acted as an observer for the Union at the election. Moser was then dispatched
27 Gulledge, Taylor, Knouse , and Charles Davis were the men whose ballots were
challenged.
2 Davis was one of the most active proponents for the Union in the plant . He also
acted as an observer for the Union in the consent election.
z7 Gulledge and Taylor were then working for a contractor who was building a new
structure for the respondent.
$0 The men did not report for work the following Monday even though they were told
they could do so.
31 Matter of Sunbeam Electric Manufacturing Co and United Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers of America, affiliated with the C. 1. 0 , 41 N. L . R. B., 469, enf 'd in N. L. R. B. v.
Sunbeam Electric Mfg. Co., 133 F. (2d) 856 (C C A 7)
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 503
during working hours to the homes of the three men to obtain this information.
After Moser reported to the respondent that all three had voted against the Union,
the respondent offered them immediate reinstatement, despite the fact that their
ballots had been challenged by the respondent on the ground that they were
permanently, rather than temporarily, laid off on June 30.
The respondent contends that its pre-election talk to the employees was "per-
fectly proper and the propriety of making it has been upheld by the courts." A
talk such as respondent's, though probably sanctioned by the Courts when standing
alone,' has, when coupled with other circumstances, been held to constitute inter-
ference with the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
Viewed, therefore, in the light of the respondent's hostility to the Union, its
surveillance of the union meeting, its questioning of the employees concerning
unionization, and the lay-offs hereinafter found to be discriminatory, Davidson's
talk was clearly coercive and consequently is not privileged or proper.3'
The undersigned finds that by its entire course of conduct, including the surveil-
lance, the questioning of employees before and after the Board election, and the
talk of July 14, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
C. The discriminatory lay-offs of June 30
By letter from Detroit Steel Products Company dated May 10, 1944, the re-
spondent was notified to cancel a portion of its contract on the manufacture of
hatches and scuttles
On May 23, 1944, the Detroit Steel Products Company, again wrote to the
respondent advising it that due to substantial cancellations of battle damage
materials, orders had been reduced and that the respondent's orders on hatches
and scuttles for the prime contractor were to be completed by July 1. The letter
went on further to state that although the prime contractor anticipated re-
ceiving additional orders, it could not then state what part of its new require-
ments it would sublet. It advised the respondent that in order to protect its
production, the respondent should assume that after the completion of the
present order, no more of this work (hatches and scuttles) was definitely in
sight. It concluded its letter with the following :
32N L R B v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. ( 2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2), cert. den.
:.20 U S 768
" N. L. R B v. Trojan Powder Co., 135 F (2d) 337 (C C. A. 3), cert. den. 320 U. S. 768.
33 See N. L. R B. v Schaefer Hitchcock Company, 131 F. (2d) 1004 (C. C. A. 9),
N L R B. v. M. B Blatt Company, 143 F. ( 2d) 268 (C. C. A. 3).
3E The respoondent was the sub -contractor on this order . The prime contractor, Detroit
Steel Products Co., sent the following letter to the respondent :
MAY 10, 1944.
PALMER -BEE COMPANY
Westminster G. T R it.
Detroit, Michigan
Re: P. O. E.-61052
GENTLEMEN : Please cancel 194 scuttles on the domestic portion of this order,
leaving a balance of 2,496 scuttles required.
Also, cancel 55 shipsets of 19 scuttles per set on the battle damage, leaving a
balance of 41 shipsets of 19 per set to be furnished. It is our understanding that the
41 sets have already been shipped so that this portion of the order will be completed
with the above cancellation.
Yours very truly
DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS CO,
B. W. RISMAN,
Asst. Purchasing Agent.
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the meantime, we hope you will be able to assign more 'men to the
production of part V-49 for army trestles, inasmuch as you are now running
behind schedule in the production of this item.
The respondent did not make any mention of the cancellation of its hatch and
scuttle contract or of the impending shut down of this department at either the
June 6 or June 23 conferences referred to, supra.
On June 29, the respondent posted the following notice on the plant bulletin
board :
Owing to the fact that our contract for hatches and scuttles for the
U. S. Navy has been canceled, the management regrets that they find it
necessary to close the hatches and scuttles department Friday, June 30 at
4: 30 until such time as we will be able to negotiate other contracts for work
in this department.
The men affected by this action will be notified by their foreman, and
certificates of availability will be arranged for all those desiring releases.
E. S. DAVIDSON,
General Manager.
On June 30, the respondent shut down the hatch and scuttle department,
and laid off all of the employees who were working in this department on that
date."
Fourteen of the 26 men laid off were members of the Union ; 4 of the original
7 organizational committeemen wdre employed in this department. a7
About a month before the Board election, Thompson stated to Moser that
Davidson had told him (Thompson) that he (Davidson) was going to have
the hatch and scuttle contract cut down forty to sixty percent, for the reason
that "there were a few in there he was going to get rid of." Thompson had
a list of names of persons to get rid of and included on the list were Cooksey,
Grey, and Davis who, according to Moser, were the most active proponents for
the Union in signing up employees in the hatch and scuttle department 38
Concluding findings
-The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the men who were
employed in the "Hatch and Scuttle" department were laid off on June 30,
1944, for the purpose of discouraging and preventing these employees from en-
gaging in concerted activity and from voting for the Union in the Board election
conducted on July 14, 1944. It is the respondent's contention that it had com-
pleted its, hatch and scuttle contract on June 30 and for that reason laid off
the employees of that department on that day.
It is clear from the undisputed and credited testimony of John H. Fletcher,
former production manager of the respondent's home office in Detroit and
temporarily in charge of respondent's plants at Winston-Salem and Kerners-
ville, and the record as a whole, that the respondent on May 10 had received
notice of the reduction of its hatch and scuttle order, and that on May 23,
sa During the hearing the parties stipulated with respect to the names of the 26 men, all
of whom were working on the hatch and scuttle job and laid o8 on June 30.
87 This finding is based on a recapitulation of the list of the employees laid off, with
Sandefur's testimony which the undersigned credits.
38 This finding is based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Moser. David-
son left the respondent's employ on February 15, 1945. Thompson, however, was general
superintendent at the time of the hearing and although available as a witness was not
called. See footnote 17, supra.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 505
the prime contractor further advised the respondent that because of the reduc-
tion it was scheduled to complete its orders on hatches and scuttles by July 1.
Moser testified that three of the most active proponents for the Union were
employees engaged in welding work on hatches and scuttles. It was Moser's
uncontradicted and credited testimony that about a month before the Board
election, Davidson told Thompson he was going to have the hatch and scuttle
contract cut down 40 to 60 percent because there were several employees they
wanted to get rid of, and included on the list of such employees were Cooksey,
Gray, and Davis, the most active proponents for the Union It is clear from
this testimony and the undersigned finds, that the respondent, having received
notice of the reduction of its orders on hatch and scuttlg work, and the prime
contractor's request that it complete its orders by July 1, thereupon planned
to discriminate against active union adherents, using the contract completion
as a pretext It is noted that at neither the June 6 nor the June 23 conference
did the respondent mention any impending lay-off or shutdown of its hatch and
scuttle department.
Granting the respondent's contention that because of the reduction in the
hatch and scuttle contract, it was completed on June 30, nevertheless it is clear
from the record that the respondent carried out its expressed and planned inten-
tion to discriminate against active union members, and in doing so discriminated
against an entire group by laying off all who were employed on hatch and scuttle
work, upon the completion of that work on June 30. It is seen that the lay-off
occurred only two weeks before the Board election. It is significant that the
day after the Board election, upon ascertaining that three of the four challenges
had voted against the Union '° and that these votes would effectively defeat the
Union in the election which was then tied, the respondent offered immediate
re-employment to these men. These three men actually went back to work on
July 21 and 24, respectively ; "0 it is noted also, that by July 31, a little over
two weeks after the respondent had determined the Union's loss of the election,
six other laid off employees were reinstated"
There is no contention, and it does not appear from the evidence, that respond-
ent did not have jobs for all of the men laid off On the contrary, it is clear
from the testimony of Fletcher and from the record as a whole, that the job of
producing the part V 49 for army trestles, like the hatch and scuttle work,
required welding. Fletcher testified further that the V 49 trestle parts were not
shipped until some time after the hatch and scuttle work was completed, but
that there may have been a preparation period Although a portion of the part
V 49 job was being done in the Detroit plant, Fletcher testified that eventually
it was all sent down to the Winston-Salem plant to be made.
When the prime contractor gave notice to the respondent that it was scheduled
to complete its orders on hatches and scuttles by July 1, the prime contractor
specifically called the respondent's attention to the fact that the respondent
was running behind schedule in the production of part V 49 and the prime con-
tractor expressed the hope that more men would be assigned to the production
of this item.
While the Trial Examiner does not venture to speculate as to the number of
employees the respondent might have, under other circumstances, shifted to other
welding work, the fact remains from the undisputed and credited testimony of
ss As pointed out, supra, the respondent indicated it knew bow Davis voted, because of
his past union activity, and therefore did not bother questioning him.
41 The three had obtained interim employment when they were laid off and were work.
Ing elsewhere For that reason they did not accept reemployment on July 17, even though
respondent offered it for that day.
41 The parties stipulated at the hearing that a total of 17 employees were reinstated.
The reinstatement will be discussed hereinafter in the Remedy.
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fletcher, that the respondent began preparation of the part V 49 job at the
time the hatch and scuttle work was being completed, that parts V 49 were
shipped from Winston-Salem shortly after the completion of the hatch and
scuttle work, and that as a matter of fact, welding was required in the production
of this part 42 Although it may be possible that because of the completion of
the hatch and scuttle work, the respondent found it necessary to eliminate some
of its employees, the respondent did not offer any evidence to show that it did
not have jobs for the men who were employed doing welding on the hatch
and scuttle work It is the reasonable inference, therefore, viewed in the light
of the respondent's anti-union activities, and its expressed and planned intentions
to get rid of the most active union proponents, that the respondent took advantage
of the completion of (he hatch and scuttle contract to lay off the active union
adherents, because of their union activities, and did so by laying off the entire
group; and reemploying some of them after the Union lost the election The
undersigned finds that the group lay off was a temporary stratagem, resorted
to by the respondent to accomplish this purpose
The undersigned finds that the 25 employees named in "Appendix A" of the
complaint, as amended, who are referred to below, were discriminatorily laid
off on June 30, 1944, for the purpose of discouraging and preventing concerted
activity and to discourage and prevent said employees from giving any. aid or
assistance to the Union and from voting for the Union in the Board election of
July 14.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
. The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the tree flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent discriminated as to the hire and tenure.
of employment of the following employees named in "Appendix A" as amended,
of the complaint :
Marvin H. Adams Robert E. Knouse
Burres E Blizzaid Carl T. McCormick
James P. Branch Oscar G. McMillan
Roy E. Brewer Earl L. Moses
John W. Cooksey John W. Myers
Carl E Enscore Luther F. Reich
William H Farmer Sam S. Smith
Wesley L. Fountain Granville Stringer
Harry R. Gray Haywood M. Taylor
Bernie Gulledge Charlie Wall
William G. Hobson .Joe C. White
Richard D. Hutchins John B Simmons
Elmer J. Kenney
°•'• The respondent admitted in his answer to the "Objections to the Election" dated July
2s, 1944, that it had retained sonic of the employees who had been doing hatch and scuttle
a ork.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 507
for the purpose of discouraging concerted activity, and for the purpose of dis-
couraging and preventing said employees from voting for the Union at the Board
election. The respondent has already reinstated the following named employees
on the dates set opposite their names .43
Burres E. Blizzard , August 1, 1944 Richard D. Hutchins, July 24, 1944
Roy E. Brewer, October 26, 1944 Robert E. Knouse, July 21, 1944
John W. Cooksey, January 9, 1945 John W. Myers, July 26, 1944
Carl E. Enscore, July 31, 1944 Sam S. Smith, July 24, 1944
William H. Farmer, August 22, 1944 Granville Stringer, August 2, 1944
Wesley L. Fountain, August 11, 1944 Haywood M. Taylor, July 24, 1944
Harry R. Gray, October 20, 1944 Joe C. White, July 24, 1944
Bernie Gulledge, July 24, 1944 John B. Simmons , July 10, 1944
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that
the respondent offer to each of the following employees : -
Marvin H. Adams Oscar G . McMillan
James P. Branch Earl L. Moses
William G. Hobson Luther F. Reich
• Elmer J.e Kenney Charlie Wall
Carl T. McCormick -
immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his other rights and privileges, and that, if respondent
has no need at the time for the services of the 25 workers herein found to be
discriminated against, it then lay off such employees as may be necessary to
ieduce its personnel to the normal complement, following such practice of
seniority or other non-discriminatory procedure as it has been accustomed to
employ prior to the time that it commenced its discriminatory practices as
herein found" It will also be recommended that the respondent make each
of the 25 afore-mentioned employees whole for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination to the date of reinstatement or offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings 96 during that period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAN
1. United Steel« orkers of America, CIO, affiliated with the Congress of In,
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
43 The parties stipulated at the hearing, regarding those reinstated and the dates of rein-
statement. The stipulation contained the name of Charles L. Murphy 'Murphy's name,
however, was eliminated from the Board ' s complaint upon its motion to amend which was
granted.
*' See Matter of Ronrico Corporation , et al., 53 N. L. R. B. 1137.
+, By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 311 U. S. 7.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Marvin
H. Adams, Burres E. Blizzard, James P. Branch, Roy E. Brewer, John W. Cooksey,
Carl E. Enscore, William H. Farmer, Wesley L. Fountain, Harry R Gray,
Bernie Gulledge, William G Hobson, Richard D. Hutchins, Elmer J. Kenney,
Robert E. Knouse, Carl T. McCormick, Oscar G. McMillan, Earl L. Moses, John
W. Myers, Luther F. Reich, Sam S. Smith, Granville Stringer, Haywood M. Taylor,
Charlie Wall, Joe C. White, and John B. Simmons, thereby discouraging concerted
activity, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent Palmer-Bee Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging concerted activity and membership in United Steelworkers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminat-
ing in regard,to the hire and tenure of employment of its employees or any term
or condition of employment ;
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join, or assist United
Steelworkers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes 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 ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the nine employees listed in Section V, "The remedy," above, who
have not yet been reinstated, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions in accordance with the views expressed in
the said section, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges;
(b) Make whole the 25 employees' names in Section V, above, for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to
the date of reinstatement or offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period ;
(c) Post at its plants at Winston-Salem, and Kernersville, North Carolina,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, after being signed
by the respondent's representative, shall be posted by the respondent immediately
upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY 509
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writ-
ing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as
he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) clays from the date of the order transferring the case to
the Board.
SIDNEY LINDNER,
Trial Emaminer.
Dated June 25, 1945.
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER
Of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of
the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE wrnr 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, 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.
WE WILL OFFER to the following named employees, Marvin H. Adams, James P.
Branch, William G. Hobson, Elmer J. Kenney, Carl T. McCormick, Oscar G.
McMillan, Earl L Moser, Luther F. Reich and Charlie Wall, immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions with-
out prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed ; and make them, and the following named employees, whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them:
Burres E. Blizzard Richard D. Hutchins
Roy E. Brewer
John W. Cooksey
Carl E. Enscore
William H. Farmer
Wesley L. Fountain
Harry R. Gray
Bernie Gulledge
Robert E. Knouse
John W. Myers
Sam S. Smith
Granville Stringer
Haywood M. Taylor
Joe C. White
John B. Simmons
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 organ-
ization.
PALMER-BEE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered -by any other material.