Phillips Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1420 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
SERVICE STEEL DIVISION OF VAN PELT CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No. 963-9330,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Phillips Manufacturing Company and International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
13-CA-5784,13-RC-9426, and 13-CA-5905. September 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1964, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and taker
certain affirmative action. The Trial Examiner further found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed with respect to the latter allegations. In addition, the
Trial Examiner found certain conduct engaged in by the Respond-
ent prior to the Board election held on July 30, 1963, to be objection-
able, as alleged in the objections to the election filed by the Peti-
tioner in Case No. 13-RC-9426, and recommended that the election
of July 30 be set aside and that a new election be directed. The Trial
Examiner found, also, that certain conduct of the Respondent prior
to the Board election held on July 30, 1963, was not objectionable as
alleged in the objections to the election filed by the Petitioner herein
and recommended that the objection referring to such conduct be,
rejected, all of the above being set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision insofar as Respondent was found to have vio-
lated the Act and to have engaged in objectionable conduct and filed
a brief in support thereof. No exceptions were filed by the General
Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
148 NLRB No. 141.
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1421
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 en-
tire record in this case including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
exceptions, and the brief 1 and hereby adopts the Trail Examiner's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations as modified hereafter .2
We shall modify paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order to read :
"(b) Announcing improvements in employee life insurance or
other employee benefits where a purpose thereof is to discourage em-
ployees from joining or assisting the Union or any labor organization
seeking to represent them." 3
' We shall add the following to paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order :
"Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
We find without merit the Respondent ' s allegations of bias , prejudice , and hostility on
the part of the Trial Examiner. There is no basis for finding that bias , prejudice, or
hostility existed merely because the Trial Examiner resolved some of the important factual
conflicts arising in the proceeding in favor of the General Counsel's witnesses. As the
Supreme Court has stated : ". . . [T]otal rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself
impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact." N.L.R B. v. Pittsburgh S.S.
Company, 337 U.S. 656 , 659. Moreover , as it is the ' Beard's established policy not to
overrule • a Trial Examiner ' s resolutions as to credibility except where , as is not the case
here; the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces it that the resolu-
tions were incorrect, we find , contrary to the Respondent ' s contention , no basis for dis-
turbing the Trial Examiner ' s credibility findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.,
91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (CA 3) Respondent' s contention of deprivation of
due process as a result of the Trial Examiner' s alleged bias, prejudice , hostility, and
alleged improper credibility resolutions is also, consequently , found to be without merit.
Respondent further alleges that it was deprived of due process of law by Trial Exam-
iners Frederick U. Reel and Abraham H. Mailer who denied , respectively, Respondent's
motion for a bill of particulars and Respondent ' s motion for an order requiring the
General Counsel to answer certain interrogatories . In both of these motions, Respondent
sought amplification of the allegations in General Counsel's complaint We affirm these
Trial Examiners for the reasons stated by them in their Orders , dated November 4 and 21,
1963, respectively , and find that Respondent was not deprived of due process of law
thereby.
2 On May 29, 1964, and after the hearing in the instant matters, the Petitioner in
Case No. 13-RC-9426 filed a motion seeking to sever that case from the three consoli-
datea cases now before the Board and seeking to withdraw the petition in that case. The
Respondent filed a statement in opposition to the Petitioner 's motion. We will grant the
Petitioner ' s motion to sever Case No. 13-RC-9426 from the remaining cases herein. We
also will grant Petitioner 's request to withdraw its petition in-that case with prejudice
See Sears, Roebuck & Company, 107 NLRB 716. Having found , in agreement with the
Trial Examiner, that the Respondent was engaged in conduct prior to the election of
July 30, 1963, which was objectionable as alleged by the Petitioner in Case No . 13-RC-
9426 , we will set the election aside. We will not, however , as a result of the granting
of the Petitioner 's request for withdrawal of its petition in that case , direct the holding
of a new election therein.
3 The second paragraph of the body of the Appendix shall be modified to read:
We WILL NOT announce improvements in employee benefits in order to discourage
employees from joining or assisting the above -named or any other labor organization.
The notice shall be further modified to show the new address of the Board's Regional
Office: 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building , 219 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois , Telephone No. 828-7572.
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner as modified herein and orders that
the Respondent Phillips Manufacturing Company, its agents, offi-
cers, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as modified herein.
IT .Is HEREBY. FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein.
TT TS HEREBY FURraER ORDERED that the election conducted on July 30,
1963, in Case No. 13-RC-9426 be, and it hereby is, set aside.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's requests to
sever Case No. 13-RC-9426 from those consolidated cases presented
to the Board herein and to withdraw its petition in Case No. 13-RC-
9426 be, and they hereby are, granted with prejudice to the Peti-
tioner's filing a new petition fora period of 6 months from the date
of this Order, unless good cause, is shown why the Board should en-
tertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of such period.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This consolidated proceeding under Sections 10 and 9 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , hereinafter called the "Act," was heard before Trial Examiner
William J. Brown, at Chicago, Illinois , December 16 to 20, 1963.1 The charge of
unfair labor practice had been filed in Case No. 13-CA-5784 on August 1, by the
above-captioned labor organization , hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Union,
and the complaint in that matter issued September 27. Subsequently, a charge was
filed in Case No. 12-CA-5905, and the Regional Director issued the complaint in
that matter on November 5, consolidating hearing thereon with the earlier complaint
and with postelection proceedings on objections to the election in Case No. 13-RC-
9426 in which the Regional Director had issued a report on October 4.
At the hearing all parties were represented as above noted and were accorded full
opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues. Subsequent to the hear-
ing all parties filed briefs which have been fully considered . The General Counsel's
brief included a motion to correct transcript in several particulars ; unopposed, it is
granted.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and on the basis of my observation of
the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The pleadings and evidence establish , and I find, that the Employer , Phillips Manu-
facturing Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois
with its, principal 6ffice, and place of business 'in Lincolnwood , Illinois , a suburb of
Chicago, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machinery cleaning
1 Dates herein refer to the year 1963 unless otherwise Indicated.
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1423
equipment and nationwide distribution of machinery cleaning solvents During the
calendar year 1962 the Company shipped goods valued in excess of $1,500,000
directly to points outside the State of Illinois. I find, as the Company concedes, that
it is engaged in operations affecting commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act. It also appears that the volume of operations justify and require the
assertion of jurisdiction herein.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find in accordance with the pleadings and evidence herein that the Union is a
labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction to the issues; summary of events
Phillips Manufacturing Company has been engaged for some 20 years in its manu-
facturing and distribution operations in which it employs about 30 production and
maintenance employees.2 For somewhat over 5 years its president has been Ephraim
Werner, and its vice president and general manager has been Milton Werner, brother
of Ephraim. Production operations at all material times have been conducted on two
shifts-7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and 3.30 p.m. to 12 midnight.
Ephraim Werner has other business interests which preclude regular attendance at
the Phillips operation and Milton Werner is the day-to-day operating head of the
business, although it appears that he is in frequent consultation with his brother
Ephraim on matters of major significance. In addition to Ephraim and Milton
Werner, the Company's supervisory employees, as indicated by the pleadings and
evidence, include Fred (usually called "Fritz") Tolzien, the plant superintendent with
more than 18 years' service with the Company, and Edward Sullivan, production
manager for the film cleaning department, with some 5 years' service with the
Company.
In addition to the supervisory and managerial employees set forth above, the Com-
pany has at various times utilized the services of group leaders or leadmen, two of
whom, John Chmiel and Paul Kilgore, figured in the events material to resolution of
the issues herein. Chmiel appeals to have been regularly employed on the day shift
and to have had some responsibilities in laying out work and testing the qualifications
of new hires in the welder occupation. Kilgore, a welder who acted as leadman when
assigned to the night shift, appears to have been the conduit through which supervi-
sion channeled assignments for the night shift. Chmiel and Kilgore do not appear
to have been endowed with the status of supervisors; they may, however, have been
specifically authorized to act on behalf of the Company in particular instances.
Sometime toward the latter part of April or first of May, two union representatives
appeared in the area of the plant gate and commenced the distribution of organiza-
tional circulars and authorization cards. Milton Werner instructed them to get off
company property and they complied with his order, first handing him one of their
circulars. The evidence indicates that in order to comply with Milton Werner's
order and still be in a position to communicate with company employees as they
drove in and out of the parking lot, the union organizers had to expose themselves
to the heavy traffic hazards of Touhy Avenue; this cannot, however, be regarded either
as an unfair labor practice nor as convincing evidence of antiunion hostility on the
part of the Company. Milton Werner observed a number of employees accept the
union literature but, the uncontradicted evidehce reveals, he could not, from his
position in the plant, note the identity of those who did so.
Among the employees who accepted the union literature and'subsequently -filled
out and mailed in union authorization cards were Joseph Marina and James Moore;
the subsequent discharge of these employees forms a major issue in `this case. Marina
received a card about May 5 and signed and mailed it in to the"Union on May 8;
Moore took a card about May 13 and signed and mailed it in about May 17. Marina
discussed his signing with fellow employees as did Moore. Moore also told Kilgore
of his signing.
The Union filed a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act on May 14 and,
after hearing, the Regional Director on June 24 issued a Direction of Election set-
ting the date of the election as July 30. Prior to the election, Marina was discharged
2 There are indications in the evidence that the Company observes a probationary status
for new hires. The evidence is not sufficiently clear to permit a finding as to the impact
If any, of such program on the issues.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on June 27 and Ephraim Werner on July 19 and 30 gave brief talks to employees
assembled in the plant. The discharge of Marina is alleged to have been an unfair
labor practice within Section 8(a) (3) of the Act and the July 30 talk of Ephraim
Werner is alleged to have interfered with the conduct of the election held shortly
thereafter on July 30 within the rule of Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427;
while no issue is presented as to the lawfulness of the July 19 talk, there is some
evidence tending to indicate that the July 30 talk, in effect, incorporated the earlier
one's contents by reference.
The tally of ballots apparently establishing the defeat of the Union, challenges and
objections were filed by the Union; also the original charge in Case No. 13-CA-5784
alleging three improper discharges was filed on August 1.
On September 26 there was a conference on these pending matters in the Regional
Office; in the course of this conference the question arose as to whether Moore's
record of absenteeism, that being at least one of the stated grounds for Marina's' dis-
charge, was not as bad as Marina's. The following day, Moore was discharged.
Following a charge filed on October 1, the complaint in Case No. 13-CA-5905 issued
on November 5 and proceedings in both complaint cases were consolidated with un-
resolved issues in the postelection proceedings.
B. Interrogation
The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice in the
nature of interference, restraint, and coercion within the ambit of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by interrogation of employees in and about the plant concerning their
union membership, activities, and desires. The complaint names Milton Werner and
Edward Sullivan as the agents through whom Respondent interrogated employees;
in addition the parties litigated the issue of whether or not Tolzien also interrogated
employees in the preelection period.
Called as a witness for the General Counsel pursuant to Rule 43(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Milton Werner related a conversation he had in the plant
sometime during the week preceding July 31. Werner denied that he inquired as to
Martin's sentiments respecting the Union; he asserted that, in accordance with his
normal practice of passing the time of day with the employees, he casually mentioned
to Martin, "I hear the Union is trying to get in our plant." According to Werner
he said this in a joking manner and Martin responded that he knew nothing about it.
Martin did not testify. At the time of this exchange the union petition had been
on file about 10 weeks and the Regional Director's hearing thereon and direction of
election were also some 2 weeks or more in the past. It would appear that the refer-
ence to the Union must either have been an insignificant comment in the nature of
a passing-the-time-of-day commonplace, or a relatively subtle invitation to Martin
to disclose his sentiments in the matter. The sum total of the evidence on this
alleged interrogation is as set forth above; it appears to me that there is no prepon-
derance in favor of the inference that this apparently innocuous declaratory sentence
asserting a fact known to all in the plant was in fact an insidious inquisitorial venture.
Not so innocuous, however, is the questioning of Peter Drummond by Milton
Werner which took place in the plant sometime in July, about 2 or 3 weeks before
the elections. Drummond, employed as the Company's shipping and receiving clerk,
testified that Werner asked him directly what he thought about the Union; his cross-
examination developed that Werner's manner was casual and by no means menacing.
Milton Werner's testimony did not directly meet the General Counsel's evidence on
this issue. He was asked whether on July 30 he had a conversation about anything
other than routine company affairs and whether on July 30 or any date thereafter
he conversed with Drummond about the union election. In other words, Werner
was not asked whether or not, as testified by Drummond, some 2 or ,3 weeks before
July 30, he asked Drummond concerning his sentiments respecting the Union.
In any event, I was favorably impressed with the demeanor of Drummond and find
him thoroughly credible. In accordance with his credited testimony, I find that some
2 or 3 weeks prior to the election Milton Werner, inquired of him in the plant as to
what he thought about the Union. There appear no circumstantial guarantees against
reprisal for a wrong answer or reward for a favorable reply nor does there appear
to be any indications that Respondent was in good faith seeking to determine whether
or not it should accord recognition without awaiting resolution of the question con-
cerning representation. Cf. Blue Flash Express, 109 NLRB 591. I find the question-
ing of Drummond by Milton Werner to constitute interference, restraint, and coer-
cion and to be an unfair labor practice defined in Section 8(a) (1).
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1425
The last item of interrogation attributed to Milton Werner, apparently the first in
order of time, is alleged to have occurred at the time of Marina's discharge about
6 o'clock on the night of June 27. The details as to the circumstances surrounding
Marina's discharge will be more fully recounted and appraised hereinafter in connec-
tion with the resolution of the issue as to the reason for his termination. For present
purposes it need only be stated that following his receipt of word at the hands of
Kilgore of his discharge, Marina, considerably wroth, proceeded to the front office
in search of Werner whom he found in the company of several other people. Werner
took him out of the office into the plant area and in the course of some apparently
heated (on Marina's part), discussion primarily directed to the fact that the discharge
check was given Marina only after he had worked some 3 hours of the shift, Werner
according to Marina, asked him directly, "Who is behind this union?"
I credit Marina's account which finds support in Werner's admission that on the
occasion in question Marina refused to tell who was behind the Union. This inter-
rogation was an act of interference within Section 8(a)(1).
The original complaint alleges interrogation of employees on the part of Sullivan
throughout the period May-July. Employee Eugene Mclnerny testified that some-
time during the early part of the Union's campaign and after he had been handbilled
as he left the plant gate, he mentioned to Sullivan that the Union was passing out
circulars. On that occasion, according to McInerny, Sullivan asked him how he
felt about the Union, and further whether or not the Union had made any approach
to him other than the circular distribution at the gate. There were, according to
Mclnerny , several similar instances of inquiries by Sullivan up to the day of the
election. While cross-examination developed the probability that some of the con-
versations between the two followed upon Mclnerny's introduction of the subject
of the union campaign, I interpret his account as establishing that in the instance of
the first discussion, at least, McInerny showed Sullivan the circular and thereupon
Sullivan engaged in the interrogation alleged in the complaint . I do not credit Sulli-
van's testimony which would tend to indicate that he did not directly question
McInerny. Rather, I find, in accordance with Mclnerny's account that Sullivan
pointedly inquired into McInerny's sympathies regarding the Union and as to the
Union's activities elsewhere than at the gate. This questioning, I find, was interfer-
ence under Section 8 (a) (I).
While the complaint does not allege interrogation of employees by Plant Superin-
tendent Tolzien, the subject was litigated at the hearing and has been discussed in the
briefs of Respondent and the General Counsel and must be considered as an issue.
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 326 F. 2d 949 (C.A. 10).
Employee Drummond, whose demeanor favorably impressed me as noted above,
testified that shortly before the election Fritz Tolzien asked him , apparently in a
friendly, conversational manner, what he thought about the Union. Tolzien thought
that Drummond commenced this conversation but could not be positive in this regard.
Appraising the totality of the evidence on this issue it clearly appears to me that it
is inferable that Tolzien's question to Drummond, and I do find that Tolzien asked
Drummond how he felt about the Union, was in response to a question by Drum-
mond to Tolzien. The evidence does not preponderate in favor of a finding that
Tolzien asked the first question and if Tolzien's question was merely in response to
Drummond 's there would not be a sufficient basis for a finding of interference in this
particular exchange of questions. I find no unfair labor practice in this exchange of
questions between Drummond and Tolzien.
C. Demand for employees' affidavits
The complaint alleges interference with protected rights of employees by the action
of Milton Werner and Fritz Tolzien in requiring employees, on August 13 and 14,
to sign an affidavit concerning the contents of Ephraim Werner's talk to assembled
employees in the plant on July 30, shortly before the election. There is no doubt
that the affidavit in question , in evidence as General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 8, was
presented to employees with either a request or a demand , that they sign . The affi-
davit is to the effect that the July 30 talk of Ephraim Werner did not contain an
exhortation to vote for or against the Union, that he merely advised them to exercise
their right to vote.
In appraising the conflicting evidence on this issue, it must be kept in mind that
on August 13 the Union's objections to the conduct of the election were matters pend-
ing before the Regional Office and included inquiry into the nature of the July 30
talk by Ephraim Werner for its evaluation under the rule of Peerless Plywood Co.,
supra
760-577-65-vol. 148-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sidney Goldstein, who has been general counsel for the Company for some 20
years, and is presently an officer and director, represented the Company in the repre-
sentation proceedings up until sometime after the September 26 conference in the
Regional Office. He testified that sometime after the election, Attorney Lazar of
the Regional Office called him and referred to information given him by employees
to the effect that Ephraim Werner had addressed employees in the plant within the
24-hour period preceding the election. In the course of their telephone discussions,
according to Goldstein, Lazar explained that if in fact Ephraim Werner's remarks
were not construable as an indication of anything other than to urge employees to
vote for their choice and if that could be established by affidavits from both the
speaker and the listeners that could conceivably resolve any difficulties in that regard.
Acting on information from Milton Werner who reported Ephraim's statement as to
his talk on July 30, Goldstein prepared General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8 which says:
WE, the undersigned, do hereby state that on July 30, 1963, that at no time did
Ephraim Werner state foi us to vote for or against the union. He merely advised
us that we should exercise our right to cast our ballots.
Upon receipt of the wording of the affidavit from Goldstein, Milton Werner pre-
pared it and presented it to a number of employees on August 12; Tolzien approached
the remaining employees on the following day. Ultimately, some 18 signatures were
affixed, including those of Supervisors Tolzien and Sullivan and Group Leader Chmiel.
Milton Werner testified that he explained to employees the reason for the request and
asked them to sign the document if they found it accurate, and that he gave Tolzien
instructions to secure signatures on the same basis. Tolzien's recollection of his
attempts in this regard was faulty and he could only recall his talk with employee
Carl Martin, whom, according to Tolzien, he asked to sign if he wished to.
Employees called by the General Counsel to describe the circulation of the affi-
davit were Moore, the alleged discriminatee, and Ralph Amerson. Amerson testified
that Milton Werner asked him if he remembered Ephraim's speech of July 30; Amer-
son apparently did remember and started telling Milton Werner about the speech,
and particularly that Ephraim Werner urged the employees to exercise their right to
vote for their choice, when Werner interrupted him to say that all the men were sign-
ing the affidavit and they would like him to sign. So Amerson signed it without
reading it.
Moore testified that Tolzien merely presented him the affidavit and instructed him
to sign it. Moore refused on the basis of his (mistaken ) belief that the affidavit
referred to the speech of July 19 on which day he had been absent.
Five signatories to the affidavit who were called as witnesses by the General Coun-
sel on other issues were not interrogated concerning the circumstances surrounding
their signing.
The evidence, in my view, preponderates in favor of the conclusion that the affi-
davit circulated as a result of the suggestion of the Regional Office attorney and that
employees were presented the affidavit in the plant by supervisory officials and, in
effect , instructed to sign it. There is no indication that threats were uttered to them
nor that there were any intimations or suggestions that they would suffer if they re-
fused to sign.
Considering the source of the preparation and circulation of the affidavit and the
inconclusive nature of any implied suggestion of reprisal , I am impelled to recom-
mend dismissal of this count of the complaint.
D. The preelection wage increases and benefit improvements
The complaint alleges that Milton Werner on or about May 15 and on or about
six other specified dates in May , June, and July , offered and granted employees wage
increases and improvements in benefits as inducement or reward for refraining from
support of the Union ; it is also alleged that Tolzien engaged in a similar course of
action on May 15. These wage increases were not initially urged by the Union as
reasons for setting aside the election of July 30, but were considered by the Regional
Director sua sponte, in view of the allegations of the complaint in Case No . 13-CA-
5784 the issuance of which preceded the date of the Regional Director's report on
objections.
1. The wage increases
The General Counsel 's brief appears to rest on the fact of the giving of the increases
in question rather than on any evidence indicating offers and promises of increases.
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1427
A review of the testimony seems to indicate a lack of support for the allegations that
Respondent offered and/or promised wage increases in connection with employee re-
jection of the Union. Accordingly, I regard the issue before me as related only to
the adjustments themselves independently of offers or promises. The adjustments are
to be considered both from the viewpoint of alleged unfair labor practices and as
objections to the election.
The General Counsel's position appears essentially to rest on the assertion that
during the Union's organizational period from May 1 to July 31, the Company granted
16 individual wage adjustments and that this stands in stark contrast to the 6 granted
in the period January 1 to May 8. In the first place, it appears on analysis of the
evidence that the alleged stark contrast is not so stark. For rather than six adjust-
ments there appears to have been nine in the period, distributed among seven em-
ployees as follows:
Ralph Amerson-------------------------------------. March 20
Carl Martin----------------------------------------. April 10
Roy Amerson--------------------------------------- March 6
March 13
Saul Patner----------------------------------------- April 10
Ray Hagood---------------------------------------- February 6
Paul Kilgore---------------------------------------- February 27
March 6
Willard Frederickson--------------------------------- February 27
The testimony of Milton Werner establishes that the Company's wage policy is
considerably flexible. Employees are all generally reviewed for increases sometime
toward the end of the calendar year but additional adjustments are frequently made
on an individual basis and the recommendations of the employee's supervisor. The
evidence establishes also that the pattern of frequent individual adjustments continued
after the election, although this is necessarily less convincing than the pattern pre-
ceding the advent of the Union.
In seeking to establish the May-July wage increases as unfair labor practices and
also a basis for setting aside the results of the July 30 election, the General Counsel
and the Union cite N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts, Co., 375 U.S. 405, as authority; the
General Counsel also relies on Greenfield Components Corporation, 135 NLRB 479,
enfd 317 F. 2d 85 (C.A. 1), and Edward's Super Market, etc., 133 NLRB 1633, and
the Union cites International Shoe Co., 123 NLRB 682. I do not read those deci-
sions as requiring a finding that the wage increases here were either unfair labor prac-
tices or a sufficient basis for upset of the election results.
In Exchange Parts, the Supreme Court defined the precise question before it as
restricted to the propriety of employer conferral of benefits shortly before an election
where the employer's purpose is to affect the outcome of the election. There the
employer, 2 weeks before a representation election, issued a bulletin announcing new
benefits and baldly stating that it would not take a union to get additional improve-
ments thus impliedly promising more if the union were rejected. The announcement
bulletin also disparaged the union for its "empty promises." It clearly appeared in
Exchange Parts that the purpose of the announcement of benefits was to affect the
election. That does not appear quite so clearly in the instant case.
International Shoe Company is also quite unlike the case at hand. There, although
the announcement of benefits was made on the very eve of the election the decision
in that regard had been made about a week previously and the primary impact of the
benefits would be at other plants of the employer where it was not posted. Similarly,
Edward's Super Market is distinguishable by virtue of the fact that the increase there
was consequent upon promises of an increase tied in to rejection of the union. Green-
field Components involved general and individual increases in the midst of an out-
spoken campaign of opposition to the union and at a time when business was declining
to the point where layoffs in substantial number had become necessary.
The authorities are not such as to require or permit the conclusion that the wage
increases here given were either an unfair labor practice or a basis for the setting
aside of the election.
2. The improvement in insurance benefits
The situation of the July 30 announcement of an improvement in the insurance
benefits is quite different, however, and in its nature and setting is, in my judgment,
clearly an act of interference with the election and an unfair labor practice under the
definition of Section 8(a)(1).
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ephraim Werner addressed employees assembled in the plant on July 19 and dis-
cussed the Union's organizational campaign in relation to the Company's existing
benefits; he disparaged the Union's claims and its officials. He appears to have deliv-
ered a hard-hitting but fair and noncoercive campaign speech on that occasion. No
question is here presented as to the propriety of Ephraim Werner's remarks on that
occasion.
He delivered a second talk, on July 30, to employees, assembled at the urging of
Fritz Tolzien, Milton Werner being absent from the plant on that day. According to
Ephraim Werner his July 30 talk was limited to urging the employees to exercise
their right to vote for their choice. Although Ephraim Werner was by no means an
unimpressive witness, I do not accept his account that his July 30 talk to employees
was as limited as he recalled it. I accept rather the accounts of the talk given by
employees Emil Milmeister and Ralph Amerson, both of whom impressed me with
their steady determination and their composure under cross-examination. Their
testimony clearly attributes to Werner the statement that the life insurance benefits
would be increased to $2,000 from the existing $1,000 coverage. In fact, the increase
in coverage was put through sometime in October.
Although Moore conceded that the affidavit concerning the talk (General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 8), which was prepared after conference with the Regional Office is an
accurate statement of the July 30 talk, I do not see in Moore's testimony any sufficient
basis for reaching a different conclusion than I do; the fact may well be that Ephraim
Werner did not baldly urge a vote against the Union, the question is whether he
subtly did so by reference to improvement in benefits.
While it appears that Ephraim Werner may have engaged in an appeal to the men
to vote I find that he also took the occasion to indicate to them that the Company was
prepared to make an improvement in the benefits available from their employment.
This amounted to an interference with their rights under Section 8(a)(1) and with
the free conduct of the election.
E. Interference with Board's processes
The General Counsel's brief asserts that while the complaint contained no allega-
tion in this regard, the matter was fully litigated during the hearing and no prejudice
from failure to allege the matter would result to Respondent by finding a violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) in this case.
The matter was not fully litigated in the necessary sense. The question arose from
the testimony of General Counsel's witness Eugene McInerny, an employee called
regarding the allegations of interrogation on the part of Sullivan, and also respecting
the election day talk of Ephraim Werner. His testimony was obviously a disappoint-
ment to the General Counsel in the latter of these issues, even after he was confronted
with a pretrial affidavit presumably inconsistent with some of his utterances in the
hearing. Exploration of the circumstances relative to the affidavit developed testi-
mony relating to his request sometime in November, for a copy thereof.
The Board has held in several decisions, Surprenant Mfg. Co., 144 NLRB 507,
Hilton Credit Corporation, 137 NLRB 56, Texas Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB 365,
and Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., et al., 143 NLRB 848, that it is an unfair labor practice
in the nature of interference with employees rights to freedom in self-organization
and in the administrative enforcement thereof for an employer to demand or request
that employees furnish them copies of affidavits furnished by the Board. While the
Board has also held with judicial approval, see Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co.,
supra, that an unfair labor practice may be found where the matter thereof has been
fully litigated even though not specifically alleged in the complaint, it would seem
a dangerous administrative course for an unfair labor practice to be found where
such nonalleged matter was litigated, as here, not in the sense of an unfair labor
practice issue but as a collateral matter bearing on the credibility of a witness. For
this reason I refrain from making any finding as to the belatedly alleged unfair labor
practice of demanding that an employee secure from the Board a copy of his affidavit.
F. The discharge of Joseph Marina
Joseph Marina was hired as a welder by the Company about March 1. A few
days previously he had filled out an application in response to a newspaper advertise-
ment for welders and had passed a test of his welding ability given him by Chmiel
at Tolzien's direction.
Marina had more than 20 years' experience at the welding trade and appears fully
qualified in arc welding. He appears to have been almost totally unqualified at read-
ing blueprints and laying out work from such prints. There is a conflict in the testi-
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1429
mony as to whether or not at the time of his hire he represented himself as able to
read blueprints . His application for employment , in evidence as Respondent 's Exhibit
No. 3, lists his prior occupational experience as "welder, burner " and leaves blankan item calling for "special training "
As pointed out above, he was interviewed by Tolzien and tested by Chmiel. Chmiel
did not testify; Tolzien testified that at the time of his hiring, Marina was told that
he would eventually have to learn to work from blueprints and do layout work to
which Marina said he wasn 't good at blueprints . Milton Werner testified that Tolzien
told him soon after the initial test given Marina, that Marina had passed the welding
test and could read blueprints . Marina, for his part, testified that he was asked by
Tolzien if he could read blueprints and do layout work, and he made it plain to
Tolzien that he was strictly a welder with absolutely no aptitude for blueprints or
layout.
I credit Marina ; making due allowance for his interest in the outcome of the case,
I found him worthy of belief in this and other regards. I find that he was hired
strictly as a welder and that he made it plain at the time of his hire that he could not
do layout work. It also seems unbelievable to me that the Company would have
expected that a man of his age and years at the trade who disclaimed so convincingly
any aptitude for layout work could have been expected to take on an apprenticeship
training in layout assignments . The evidence to me indicates that he was hired as a
welder with no expectation he would progress into anything else. I am also impressed
by the absence of testimony from Kilgore as to any layout instruction or assignments
given to Marina. His account supports the conclusion that Marina was at all times
assigned as a welder . While he may have, as appears from Tolzien 's testimony, made
occasional mistakes , they do not appear to have been either substantial or relied upon
by management as a basis for releasing Marina.
As noted above , Marina accepted the Union 's literature and an authorization card
from the solicitors at the plant driveway (as also did, apparently , all or almost all
of the Company 's employees ). He thereafter signed the card and mailed it in to
the Union. Although Marina credibly testified that he discussed the fact of his sign-
ing the authorization card with fellow employees Moore and Spiller, and further
testified that there was considerable discussion concerning the union campaign in the
plant, there is no direct evidence indicating knowledge on the part of supervisory
officials of Marina's signing the card. Knowledge may, or may not, however, be
inferred from the entire set of congeries referable to the true reason for his discharge
and my conclusion in this regard is set out hereinafter.
Marina worked initially on the day shift under Chmiel as his group leader or
leadman; he appears to have been assigned a large part of the arc welding of tanks,
the work in this regard being laid out for him by layout men who did possess the
aptitude to read blueprints and by the supervisor . On May 20, Marina was trans-
ferred to the night shift , receiving a night shift differential of 20 cents per hour. It
appears that Marina's transfer was a matter partly of accommodation to the Company
which had experienced the loss of some night shift workers through quits and partly
a matter of Marina's own desire to try the night shift for a change.
On the night shift he worked under Kilgore as a group leader who did the layout
work in connection with Marina 's welding. Marina testified , and I credit him, that
he was never assigned to a job requiring him to read blueprints and do layout work.
He does appear , according to his testimony to have occasionally attempted to decipher
the blueprints , but only in a haphazard fashion and without serious intent or any
feeling of obligation as part of his employment . Tolzien's testimony , uncorroborated
by Kilgore, that he was assigned work with a leadman instructing him to learn blue-
prints is unconvincing.
There was some illness on the part of Marina's wife which required occasional
unanticipatable visits to the doctor . The necessity of taking her to the doctor 's office
on such occasions caused several absences and some occasions of tardiness on
Marina's part . He credibly testified that he explained to Tolzien , while he was on
the day shift , his problems in this regard and after a reprimand for the occasion when
he did not call in, Tolzien appears to have stated to Marina that he should call in
when he could
Tolzien testified that Marina was absent about eight times but that he could not
remember whether or not he was excused on these occasions . Also, Tolzien's testi-
mony concerning the extent of any reprimand that may have been given indicates that
any rebuke was limited to an inquiry as to where he had been it cannot be denied
that there were numerous occasions of absences and tardiness both before and after
Marina went on the night shift. His timecards are in evidence in this proceeding and
establish that his absentee record had been spotty from March 6 to the time of his
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge. Comparison with records of hours of work of other employees (General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 17A-U) shows that Marina failed to work his 40 hours in more
weeks and by larger periods of absence than any other employee for whom records
are available. There appears to have been a basis for concluding that his absenteeism
could have caused some disruption of the Company's work schedules particularly
after his transfer to the night shift. Although there is a suggestion that his absence
had a potentially disruptive effect there is, however, no convincing showing that in
fact the work processes were seriously disarranged.
In a letter of August 13 to the Regional Director, Attorney Goldstein asserted that
the reasons for the discharge of Marina were both excessive absences and improper
training in reading and understanding blueprints. In view of the evidence which I
credit and which establishes that Marina never claimed ability in the area of blue-
print work, and in fact emphatically disclaimed any aptitudes in that field, I find that
this letter sets out, in that respect , a completely unsupportable basis for the decision
of the Company to discharge Marina.
The question before me is as to whether the discharge of Marina was influenced in
whole or in part by knowledge, belief or suspicion that he was one of the advocates or
supporters of the Union in its organizational effort, and motivated by a desire to
stifle union organization , I am convinced on the basis of the totality of evidence that
the preponderance, while by no means overwhelming, favors the conclusion that he
was discriminated against within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3). In reaching this
conclusion I am considerably swayed by the events occurring immediately at the time
of the discharge and particularly by the revealing testimony of Kilgore
Milton Werner testified that he made the decision to discharge Marina and that
he reached this decision after consulting Tolzien and Kilgore . While Tolzien cor-
roborated Werner on this I do not find his corroboration as significant as the failure of
Kilgore to corroborate Werner. In fact, the testimony of Kilgore plainly indicates
that he was not only not consulted as to the discharge of Marina but was in fact
astonished by news of the discharge when it was broken to him shortly before the
fact. Kilgore was the group leader or, as Milton Werner described him, the night
,shift foreman. Although he lacked supervisory status it is clear that he not only
laid out and assigned work at night but also was the only person in authority in the
plant on the night shift. He, in other words, had the responsibility to see to it that
the work of the Company was done on the night shift and if any employee were
absent or falling down in his production efforts it would have been of direct and
immediate concern to Kilgore. Yet, when he came to work on the day of the dis-
charge, and was given Marina's check with instructions to discharge Marina, he
appears to have been literally dumbfounded. For, when Tolzien said to him that they
had to let Marina go , Kilgore, the man most familiar with his attendance and per-
formance , asked , ". . what is wrong with Joe, just like that, it hit me . . .
The result I reach is also indicated , to my view , by the postdischarge conversation
between Marina and Milton Werner. Irate, particularly at the timing of the dis-
charge coming as it did midway into the night shift, Marina charged into Milton
Werner's office. During the ensuing conversation reference was made to the Union.
Marina testified, and I credit him, that the subject was introduced by Milton Werner
and the latter conceded that Marina said that if he knew who was behind the Union
he wouldn't tell Werner. As the General Counsel points out, it is most unlikely that
such a statement would be made except in response to a question from Werner.
I credit Marina's account that Milton Werner pointedly asked Marina who was behind
the Union. This confirms the view that he knew or believed that Marina was in a
position to know the answer.
The material evidence outlined above preponderates in favor of the conclusion
that Marina was discharged because of the union activity in which he was engaged.
G. The discharge of James Moore
James Moore was hired sometime in 1961 and worked as an assembler on the day
shift until his discharge on September 27. He signed a card for the Union sometime
in May and thereafter, in the course of a friendly conversation with Kilgore, revealed
his act of signing. In view of my conclusion as to the nonsupervisory status of Kil-
gore, I do not impute his knowledge to the Company; it was however, a source
through which the Company could have acquired knowledge that Moore was a union
supporter. For reasons hereinafter detailed, I find it unnecessary to decide whether
or not the evidence indicates knowledge on the part of the Company of Moore's
affiliation with the Union.
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1431
The charge in the Marina case had been filed on August 1 and was under investi-
gation in the Regional Office preliminary to the issuance of the complaint which
occurred on September 27. As noted above, Goldstein had under date of August 13,
written to the Regional Office asserting a justification for the Marina discharge and
a willingness to cooperate in development of the full factual pattern. A conference
was held in the Regional Office on September 26 among the two Werners and Gold-
stein for the Company and Regional Office representatives Lazar and Chooney. In
the course of the meeting, the absentee record of Marina was discussed and Lazar,
apparently to refute absenteeism as the true reason for Marina's discharge, pointed
to Moore's record as one which seemed as bad or worse than Marina's. At that point
Ephraim Werner inquired of Milton Werner whether or not Moore's absences had
been excused. The latter being uncertain, it was agreed then and there between them
that they would check the question of excuses on return to the plant and if they were
missing, Moore would also be discharged.
Moore was absent from work on September 26 due to the illness of his wife. He
testified that he called in to Tolzien about 9 a.m. and explained the case and Tolzien
said "All right, Jim; I'll see you tomorrow." Tolzien did not deny this and further-
more asserted that although Moore had been absent about a dozen times the extent
of any inquiry from Tolzien would be as to where he had been. Tolzien did not
directly deny Moore's account that he had a regular understanding with Tolzien that
he would call in if he would be absent a full day and otherwise would report when
able. Most significantly, Tolzien did not report any conferences with either or both
of the Werners on their return from the Regional Office conference on September 26.
The inference is that the decision had been made to discharge Moore irrespective of
any question of the excuses for his absence.
While it does appear considerably difficult to understand the apparent apathy of
Moore at his discharge at the hands of Tolzien, I cannot deduce any significance from
his failure to protest the asserted ground for his discharge which would override the
plain implications that he was discharged in an effort to validate one of the asserted
reasons for Marina's discharge.
The evidence indicates by a fair preponderance that no discharge steps would have
been taken against Moore were it not for the necessity of vindicating the Marina
situation. The discharge of Moore was therefore discriminatory within Section 8
(a)(3). Willard's Shop Rite Markets, Inc., 132 NLRB 146, enfd. 300 F. 2d 764
(C.A. 6).
H. Objections to conduct affecting the election
Inasmuch as it clearly appears, as outlined above , that there is no basis for in-
ferring either improper motivation or actual interference either in the timing, or
nature, distribution, or amounts of wage adjustments in the period preceding the
election of July 30, I recommend that this objection be rejected. The talk delivered
shortly before the balloting, however, stands, in my appraisal of all the evidence, on
a different footing and since I conclude that Ephraim Werner took the occasion to
announce improvement in the life insurance program , I find that this constituted
electioneering in contravention of the standards established in Peerless Plywood and
recommend that on this basis the election be set aside and a new election directed
at such time as in the judgment of the Regional Director is appropriate in the
circumstances.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices found to have been committed by the Respondent
Company as set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of my findings that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
in the nature of interference , restraint , and coercion of employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be required
to cease and desist therefrom I shall recommend that Respondent also be required
to cease and desist from discouraging union membership by discriminatory discharges
and affirmatively, that Respondent be required to offer full reinstatement with back-
pay and interest to Joseph Marina and James Moore The remedial relief principles
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716, shall apply. In the circumstance of discriminatory discharges, the
cease-and-desist order should be broad . I shall recommend the posting of an appro-
priate notice.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By interrogating employees as to their feelings respecting the Union and the iden-
tity of the person behind the union movement in the company plant, and by announc-
ing improvement in employee benefits on the immediate eve of a representation
election under Section 9 of the Act, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
defined in Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and in conduct warranting the setting aside of
the election.
4. By discharging employees Marina and Moore under circumstances set forth
above, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this case, I recommend that Respondent Phillips Manufacturing
Company, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their feelings with respect to the Union
or any labor organization seeking to represent them or interrogating them as to the
identity of the person or persons active in organizing on behalf of the Union or any
labor organization seeking to represent them.
(b) Announcing improvements in employee life insurance or other employee
benefits in periods immediately preceding representation elections under Section 9
of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
(d) Discouraging membership in or support of the Union by discharging employ-
ees or in any manner discriminating against them as to hire, tenure, or any term or
condition of employment because of their participation in activities on behalf of the
Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate
to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Joseph Marina and James Moore immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority or
other rights and privileges and make them whole for loss of pay in the manner set
forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, and payroll records, and all other records necessary to determine the amount
of backpay due under the terms hereof.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its plant in Lincolnwood , Illinois, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
' If 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 If the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order " for the words " a Decision and
Order "
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1433
Director for Region 13 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained in said
conspicuous places for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.4
It is recommended that unless within the aforesaid 20-day period the Respondent
notify the Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the Order recom-
mended herein, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Re-
spondent to take the action recommended.
It is finally recommended that the election conducted July 30 in Case No. 13-RC-
9426 be set aside and a new election be conducted at such time as in the judgment of
the Regional Director the effect of the unfair labor practices and acts of interference
have been dissipated.
I recommend the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices
not found herein to have been committed.
I If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the 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 National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question employees concerning their feelings regarding the
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization
seeking to represent them nor will we question employees as to the name or
names of leaders in union organizing efforts.
WE WILL NOT interfere with employee rights under the Act, nor with the
free conduct of election by announcing improvements in benefits on the eve of
representation elections.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or support of the above named or any
other union by discharging or discriminating against employees on the basis of
the membership in, or support of, said Union.
WE WILL offer reinstatement with backpay to their former or equivalent jobs
to Joseph Marina and James Moore.
All our employees are free to join or assist the above named or any other labor
organization or to refrain from such action except as their rights so to refrain may
be affected by an agreement lawfully entered into under the Act. We will not in any
manner interfere with these rights.
PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees -if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 176 West
Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No Central 6-9660, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.