Smith Victory Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 2089 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION and FLORENCE
MCMASTER, AN INDIVIDUAL
Case No. 3-CA-212.-Decided August 22 ,1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 15, 1950, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief and re-
quested oral argument. The Respondent's request for oral argument
is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record and Respondent's brief
adequately present the position of the parties.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the addition
and modification hereinafter set forth.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the discharge of
McMaster for acting as spokesman of the employees in their concerted
effort to bargain with the Respondent concerning a wage increase was
a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.' Although the
Trial Examiner found that the discharge was violative of the Act
"even though the concerted activity did not result from any interest
or activity in a labor organization," we find that the group of em-
ployees, by acting in concert to seek a wage increase, did constitute
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel
( Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
2 Whether the discharge be regarded as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) or of Section
8 (a) (3), we find that it is necessary to order reinstatement with back pay, as recom-
niended by the Trial Examiner , in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
90 NLRB No. 283.
2089
2090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
themselves a labor organization.3 The Trial Examiner's finding is
therefore modified in this respect.
The Remedy
Since the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report,
the Board has adopted a method of computing back pay different from
that prescribed by the Trial Examiner.' Consistent with that new
policy we shall order that the loss of pay be computed on the basis of
each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period
from the Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper
offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter called
"quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and
October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting, from a sum
equal to that which this employee would normally have earned for
each quarter or portion thereof, her net earnings,5 if any, in other
employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter
shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
We shall also order the Respondent to make available to the Board
upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of
the amount of back pay due.e
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Smith Victory
Corporation, Buffalo, New York, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its em-
ployees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively
3N. L. R . B. v. Kennanietal, Inc., 182 F. 2d 817 (C. A. 3) ; Gullet Gin Company,
Inc., 83 NLRB 1; Pacific Powder Company, 84 NLRB 280.
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
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- elsewhere;
which would not have been incurred but for this'unlawful. discrimination, and the conse-
quent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . Crossett Lumber Company, 8
NLRB 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, County, municipal,
or other work-relief projects shall be considered earnings. Republic Steel Corporation V.
N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
6 F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2091
through representatives of their own choosing; and to engage in con-
•certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any of all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Florence McMaster immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Florence McMaster in the manner set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her;
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the
right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order;
(d) Post immediately at its plant in Buffalo, New York, copies of
the notice attached hereto, marked Appendix A.' Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region,
:shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
,or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
=spondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 discourage membership in any labor organization
of our employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of
. R In the event this order is enforced by. decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order" the words , "A Decree
,of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
2092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD
our employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-.
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
WE WILL OFFER to Florence McMaster immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position with-
out prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges prev-
iously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of our discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to form, join, or assist any labor organ-
ization and to become or remain members of any labor organization,
and to engage in any self-organization and other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated --------------- By ---------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. John S. Patton and Wm. Naimark , for the General Counsel.
Saperston , McNaughtan and Saperston, by Mr. Howard Saperston , of Buffalo,
N. Y., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a first amended charge filed March 13, 1950, by Florence McMaster, an
individual, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, called
herein respectively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for the Third Region ( Buffalo, New York ), issued a complaint dated
March 22, 1950, against Smith Victory Corporation , herein called the Respondent.
The complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
and the first amended charge, together with notice of hearing were duly served
upon the Respondent and the charging party.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance
that : Respondent , on or about August 31 , 1949; - discharged Florence McMaster
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2093
and thereafter refused to reinstate her because she and other employees engaged
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection, and that Respondent, by its officers, agents, and supervisory
employees, from about August 31, 1949, interrogated its employees concerning
their concerted activities and urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned its
employees to refrain from assisting, remaining, or becoming members of a union,
or engaging in other concerted activity.
Respondent filed an answer which denied that it has engaged in- any unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint, but admitted the discharge of
Florence McMasters, stating affirmatively that her discharge was for cause.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on April 3, 6, and 7, 1950, at Buffalo,
New York, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented
by counsel. All parties participated in the hearing, were afforded full oppor-
tunity 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, Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
upon the grounds that General Counsel had failed to prove concerted activity
by the employees or that Florence McMaster had been acting on behalf of the
employees, that no direct connection between her discharge and any concerted
activity of the employees had been proven, and that the Board had failed to prove
its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The motion was denied. During
the course of Respondent's proof, General Counsel moved to strike from the record
reports introduced by Respondent showing daily production and scrap coming
from the bobbypin machines for the period September 1 to 15, 1949, immediately
following the discharge of Florence McMaster, on the ground that such records
were not material or competent proof on the question of the reason for her
discharge by Respondent on August 31, 1949. The Trial Examiner reserved
decision on the motion at the time. The motion is hereby denied for reasons
which will be stated later in this Report. At the close of the hearing General
Counsel made a motion to conform the pleadings to the proof as to names , dates,
and other minor variances ; a similar motion was made by Respondent with
respect to its answer ; both motions were granted without objection.
General Counsel and counsel for Respondent argued orally before the Trial
Examiner at the close of the hearing. Both parties were afforded an opportunity
to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both.
Both General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs, which have been given
careful consideration in the preparation of this Report. Respondent also filed
with the Trial Examiner proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ; the
Trial Examiner has adopted proposed findings numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, and has
rejected those numbered 5, 6, and 7, as well as all the proposed conclusions of law,
for the reasons set forth in this Report.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of witnesses the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
At all times mentioned. in the pleadings and the record, Respondent was a
corporation organized and existing' under, the laws of the State of Delaware,
having its principal office and place "of business in the city of Buffalo, New
.York, where it is engaged in the manufacture of bobbypins, hairpins, perfumes,
2094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and related products . In the course of its business operations during the year
ending December 31 , 1948, Respondent purchased raw materials and supplies
valued in excess of $100 ,000, of which approximately 25 percent was shipped t©
its Buffalo , New York, plant from points outside the State of New York. During
the same period Respondent sold finished goods valued in excess of $150,000, of
which approximately 80 percent was sold and shipped from the Buffalo, New
York, plant to points and customers located outside the State of New York. At
the hearing Respondent stipulated and admitted that it was and is engaged in
interstate commerce within the 'meaning of the Act.
On the basis of the above facts I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce.
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary facts
The events related in this Report occurred in the manufacturing plant of Re=
spondent located at 2969 Main Street, Buffalo , New York, and involved a
group of approximately 30 employees employed in the bobbypin manufacturing.
department on the first floor of the plant not far from the executive offices
occupied by the officers of Respondent.
The principal individuals involved in the events discussed below are Florence
McMaster , Florence Wojdan, and Irene Rew, punch press operators in the bobby-
pin department ; . William White, foreman of the bobbypin department ; Paul
Kreker, former executive vice president in charge of operations of Respondent;.
and Alfred H. Sachs, formerly treasurer and now president of Respondent.
There is no proof in the record of any activity by an organized labor organi-
zation in the plant of Respondent either prior to or on August 31, 1949. However,
for about a week or more prior to that date, the punch press operators in the
bobbypin department had been discussing among themselves the possibility of
securing a wage increase for employees in that department . These discussions
culminated in the . following events, all of which took place on August 31, 1949
The decision of the press operators to ask Respondent for a wage increase,
and their appointment of Florence McMaster as their spokesman to arrange a
conference with the management ; McMaster 's request to Paul Kreker for a con-
ference between Kreker and the press operators ; Kreker's immediate discharge
of McMaster ; and his speech to the bobbypin operators immediately thereafter.
The discharge of McMaster and Kreker 's speech will be discussed in that order-
B. The discharge of Florence McMaster
Florence McMaster worked for Respondent as a punch press operator in the
bobbypin department from June 1947, to August 31, 1949, the date of her dis-
charge, except for a period from September 17, 1948, to March 29, 1949 , during.
which she was laid off with other press operators for slack business in the.
department . On the company . records, McMaster was known as operator num-
ber 101, operating machine number 12 'in the bobbypin department . That de-
partment is located on the first floor of Respondent 's plant ; there are 2 rows of
punch presses in the department , 12 to 15 machines in each row ; the machines
in each row are about 4 feet away 'from each other ; McMaster's machine was
located about the middle of one row ;' Florence Wojdan and Irene Rew operated
machines in the same row on either side of McMaster. Irene Rew is the sister-
-in-law -of Florence - McMaster . - All the employees in this department are women.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2095
William White is the foreman of the bobbypin department , exercising direct
supervision over all employees and operations therein.
For a week or two before August 31 , 1949, the employees in the bobbypin de-
partment had been discussing among themselves the possibility of securing a
wage increase for all operators in the department . It was the general feeling that
the operators were entitled to an increase of 10 cents an hour. This subject was
discussed continually by the employees before working hours, during their rest
periods, and at lunch, and also at their machines during working hours. By the
morning of August 31 , the employees had determined to ask the management for
a wage increase . During that morning, while working at their machines, they
discussed the appointment of one of their number to ask Mr. Kreker to arrange
a conference with them to discuss the wage increase . After discussion back and
forth from machine to machine, they decided to appoint Florence McMaster as
their spokesman to ask for the conference . Florence Wojdan and Irene Rew
both communicated this decision to McMaster , and asked her to speak to White,
the foreman , and request him to arrange a group meeting with Mr. Kreker. Mc-
Master thereupon spoke to White in the department about 11: 30 in the morning,
stating that she was speaking for the operators , that they wanted to discuss a
wage increase with Kreker , and asked him to arrange with Kreker for a meeting
with the girls at 12: 30 p m. White at once advised Kreker of McMaster's re-
quest to him , stating . McMaster wanted to arrange a . conference for all the girls
to discuss a wage increase . Kreker told White to send McMaster in, stating that
he was going to discharge her, "as we didn ' t want any dissatisfied employees.
White went back to the department , shut off McMaster 's machine, and told her
that Kreker wanted to see her in his office . He took her to Kreker's office about
11: 45 a. m., introduced her to Kreker , and said that she had come in to speak
for the girls in her department . White then left the office .1
It is clear from the above facts, and I find, that prior to and on August 31, 1949,
the operators in the bobbypin department , including Florence McMaster, were
engaging in concerted activity involving discussion of a wage increase and result-
ing in their choice of McMaster on the 31st as their spokesman to seek a conference
for them with management on that subject . Such discussion and the initiation of
steps to present the grievance to their Employer was a form of concerted activity
protected by Section 7 of the Act 2 The fact relied on by Respondent that all of
the employees in the department did not directly authorize McMaster to represent
them in asking for the conference does not make their discussion and choice of a
representative any less a protected concerted activity'
As McMaster entered the room and before she could say anything , Kreker,
told her that he had heard she was dissatisfied with her work and working con-
ditions; ; that the Company was a good place to work and that they tried to make
it comfortable for all the employees and they did not want anyone dissatisfied ;
that apparently she was dissatisfied and "the best thing to do was just to call
it quits and we would give her her release." He also said to her "if I worked for
an organization and I was dissatisfied I would quit ." Kreker testified that appar-
ently McMaster did not see "eye to eye" with him on that point , and that was why
he gave her her release . Kreker also told McMaster she was a troublemaker and
1 These findings are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of McMaster, Rew,.
Wojdan, and White . To the extent that Kreker ' s testimony conflicts with these findings,
it is not credited.
Z Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, 73 NLRB 1463 , enforced 167 F. 2d 983,.
certiorari denied by U. S. Supreme Court, 335 U. S. 845.
3 Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, supra ; The Globe Company, 54 NLRB 1.
2096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he understood she was speaking for the other girls, and if he heard any
other girls speaking in the same way, he would let them go also. McMaster im-
mediately asked what trouble she had made or how she was dissatisfied with her
work, but Kreker refused to discuss the matter with her, gave her a final pay
check, and told her to leave the building. The whole conversation lasted about 5
minutes.
McMaster left the office to go back to her department, and on the way she met
Mr. White in the hall and told him she had just been discharged by Kreker.
White said "That is too bad, but I don't know what I can do about it." McMaster
asked White if she could eat lunch in the cafeteria with the other girls in her
department. He gave her permission to do so and she went upstairs to the
lunchroom on the third floor. She had just begun to eat her meal with the other
girls when Wiesner, the plant machinist, called her out of the lunchroom, stating
she had no right to eat with the other employees, and that she must leave the
plant at once. She left the plant immediately. Wiesner ordered McMaster
from the plant upon direct instructions from Kreker, who testified that it was his
policy not to permit discharged employees to remain in the plant or to talk with
any other employees there after discharge.'
At the hearing Respondent claimed that McMaster was lawfully discharged for
inefficiency in her work, because she produced bobbypins of poor quality, her
daily quantity of production was below average, and she had too much waste.
A description of the operation of a bobbypin machine will be helpful in ananlysis
of this contention.
The bobbypin machine is an electrically. operated automatic punch press
which under normal conditions operates at a constant speed when the power is
turned on. The machines average 220 to 240 strokes a minute in normal
operation. In the manufacture of a bobbypin, the machine in one operation
draws a fixed length of wire from a spool of wire attached to the machine, cuts
off the wire at a certain length and, by means of a die, folds it down over a flat
metal rod about 24 inches long, the die simultaneously pressing into one-half of
the wire a series of smooth waves or corrugations which are characteristic of a
bobbypin . By this process , one complete pin is made and racked on the metal
rod with each stroke or cycle of the press.
During the operation of the punch press, the operator feeds the flat metal rod
into the rear of the machine so that the manufactured pins can be racked on it
during manufacture. When the rod has been filled with completed pins, it
emerges from the opposite side of the press, and the operator walks to that side,
removes the rod, and inspects the pins thereon for imperfections. If the pins
appear to be properly formed, the rod with pins is placed on a tray. The operator
then repeats the whole operation. When the trays are filled with rods or pins,
they are taken to other departments for japanning, lacquering, and other treat-
ment prior to packaging for shipment.
If the pins racked on a rod have "burrs," i. e., the waves are rough or sharp, it
is the duty of the operator to discard the pins into a waste pail near the machine,
stop the press immediately, and call for a maintenance man who removes the
4 The above findings are based upon the testimony of McMaster , Wojdan , Rew, White,
and Kreker . To the extent that Kreker ' s testimony conflicts with the above findings as
to certain particulars of the conversation between him and McMaster, I do not credit his
statements . McMaster impressed the Examiner as a straight -forward, honest witness.
Kreker admitted , on cross-examination , most of the conversation outlined above ; his later
speech to the employees of the bobbypin _ department , which will be discussed below, also
lend credence to his remarks to McMaster as found above.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2097
worn dies which cause the imperfections and installs sharp dies. If the operator
is not diligent in inspecting the pins as they emerge from the machine and in
stopping it as soon as imperfect pins appear, the machine will continue to run
and turn out imperfect pins, all of which have to be rejected as waste. If this
occurs, the operator's output of useable trays of pins is reduced and the amount
of waste pins is increased. It is therefore incumbent upon the operator to inspect
the manufactured pins promptly and to stop the machine as soon as bad pins
appear, in order to keep the waste to a minimum.
Even though an operator is vigilant to prevent the manufacture of bad
pins, her daily output may he reduced by frequent stoppages of her press for
installation of full spools of wire, change of dies, and for breakdowns of the
machine due to other causes. In such instances, the operator normally continues
her operations on a spare machine, if one is available, and returns to her own
press after it is ready for operation.5
In support of its claim of McMaster's inefficiency, Respondent introduced in
evidence a daily record of production and waste compiled for each machine in
the bobbypin department. during the period August 15 through 31, 1949. In the
early part of 1949 Respondent had been operating at a loss, and its officers
determined to take steps to ascertain the causes of the losses and eliminate
them if possible. For this purpose Treasurer Sachs conceived the daily pro-
duction record as a means of checking on the production and efficiency of each
press operator. He gave orders to Kreker to maintain these reports, study them
daily, review them periodically, and to eliminate the operators who had con-
sistently poor performance records. The reports were made up daily for Kreker
by Foreman White after a count of production and weighing of scrap at each
machine.
The production record indicates that during the last 2 weeks in August,
McMaster varied in her daily production from 42 trays to as low as 33 trays, and
her daily waste varied from 4 to 6 pounds. In contrast, other operators gen-
erally maintained a rather consistent daily output of between 37 and 42 trays
and suffered a wastage between 2 and 4 pounds. For the period in question,
McMaster's production averaged 35.4 trays per day ; Irene Rew averaged 38.9
trays, Florence Wojdan averaged 38.5, and the other employees averaged from
37.2 to 41.7 trays. McMaster's waste averaged 5.1 pounds per day, as against
3.4 pounds for Wojdan and 3.2 pounds: for Rew ; the other operators averaged
from 2.5 to 3.5 per day. These figures take into consideration an admitted
variance in production of 1. to 2 trays per day for. each press, which is con-
sidered normal for a machine.
Respondent argues from the above record that since a punch press operates
automatically and at constant speed, and the operator's duties are confined to
two simple operations of feeding in and removal of rods plus a final inspection
of pins, the occurrence of low production and high waste at McMaster's machine
is conclusive proof that she was not properly attentive to her machine and
demonstrates that she was much less efficient than other operators in her
department. The force of this contention is weakened, however, by other
admitted facts.
1. The daily record in question covered only the last 2 weeks of McMaster's
employment. There is no record or other credible evidence of similar ineffi-
ciency on her part during the 2 years of her employment.
6 These findings as to the technical operations are based on testimony of McMaster, Rew,
Wojdan; Kreker, and White.
903847-51-vol. 90-133
2098_ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The production record indicates that, in McMaster 's case at least, high
wastage did not always go with low production . On August 19 and 26 she pro-
duced 40 trays and had 6 pounds of waste each. day ; on August 22 she made 39
trays with 5 pounds of waste; on August 24 she again produced 39 trays with
only-4 pounds of waste ( which 10 other operators also experienced one or more
times in the. period ) ; and on August 31, the day of her discharge , in 4 hours
of work, she produced 21 trays ( at a top rate of 42 trays per day) and had 3
pounds of waste ( a rate of 6 pounds per day ). Respondent offers no explanation
for these figures. They show, however , that on at least 5 out of 13 working
days covered by the records , McMaster produced as much or more than other
operators , despite the,higher wastage at her machine . McMaster testified that
her output was from 40 to 42 trays per day "when my machine was running good,"
which is corroborated by her daily production figures for August 19 , 26, and 31.
3. The testimony of McMaster , Rew, and Wojdan indicates that a drop in pro-
duction and increase in waste can occur from other causes without fault of the
operator . Thus, excessive die trouble in a press not only causes more waste
but keeps the machine idle during the change of dies for about half an hour
each time ; if the maintenance man is not immediately available , the press will
remain idle a longer time until . he comes to make the change. In addition, the
carrying rod may jam in going through a press, which will not only produce
bad pins but will require a shut-down of the machine to clear the stoppage. If
the pin wire is defective , it will cause production of bad pins and waste, and
the machine must be stopped to clear out the bad pins and change the spool of
wire. Finally , the machines in this department varied in age from 1 to 7 years
and were subject to frequent breakdowns , which very often required a complete
dismantling and rebuilding of machines , during which they were out of opera-
tion. This testimony stands uncontradicted , and is corroborated by Kreker's
admission that the operator was not the sole cause of variances in production
and amount of waste ; his opinion that it is due in 90 percent of the cases to
the operator is not credited.
4. McMaster 's machine suffered excessive die trouble , often requiring several
die changes with attendant shutdowns in 1 day . In the last week 's of her
employment , the wheel carrying the spool of wire in her press often stuck,
requiring a shutdown of the press for adjustment and repair each time. This
would also cause more waste ; since the wire is drawn into the press under
tension, a sticking wheel would increase the tension , resulting in a slowing up
of the wire and cutoff of a piece shorter than normal before the die impressed
it; in consequence , no pins of varying lengths would appear on the rod and would
have to be discarded as waste. McMaster ' s machine also suffered shutdowns,
in common with other presses in the department , for the various other causes
discussed above.
5. When her press was idle for any of the above reasons, McMaster was often
unable to find a spare machine available for continuance of her production. Very
frequently the extra presses were either not in condition to operate due to lack
of dies or need of adjustment or repair , or those that could be operated were
already in use by other , employees whose own machines were idle for one of the
above reasons . In such cases , McMaster could do nothing to continue production
until her own machine was ready to operate ."
9 These findings are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of McMaster, Rew,
and Wojdan . Conflicting testimony of Kreker and White is not credited . Breker only
testified substantially to the general practice of having spare machines available for the
employees to operate ; White's testimony on this subject was vague and not convincing.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2099
On the basis of the above facts I therefore find, contrary to Respondent's con-
tention, that McMaster's low production and high scrap was not substantially the
result of her own operation of her press but was due in large part to operating
conditions beyond her control.'
However, while the production records may have given Respondent just cause
to discharge McMaster, the question to be decided is whether her inefficiency
was the motivating reason for the discharge. There are certain other factors
which indicate persuasively that it was not:
1. As stated above, the production record of McMaster shows a fluctuating
but not a consistently low production ; she went as low as 33, 34, and 35 trays on
several days, but she also reached an output of 40 trays on 2 days and the top rate
of 42 trays the day of her discharge. This record covered only the last 2 weeks
of her employment, and there is no proof of similar inefficiency during her pre-
vious 2 years of employment. As against this, the record in this case indicates
that McMaster was not considered inefficient by Respondent before August 15,
when the daily production record was started. The uncontradicted testimony
of McMaster, Rew, and Wojdan establishes that McMaster had an excellent at-
tendance record, that while at work she did not neglect her machine, and that
Respondent used her to train most of the new workers brought into the depart-
ment. She had never been criticized or cautioned about her work. Furthermore,
when all but 7 of the employees in the department were laid off for business
reasons from September 1948 to March 1949, McMaster was 1 of the first 2 of
that group recalled to work on March 29, 1949. If she had been as inefficient
as Respondent contends, it is hardly likely that she would have been recalled
so quickly or would have been permitted to train new employees.
2. Although McMaster was apparently a valued employee, when Kreker learned
of her substandard production after August 15, he made no attempt to discover
why her record was below average, and took no steps to help her correct the sit-
uation. One of his main duties was to analyze operations in the bobbypin de-
partment and to make changes which would increase production and reduce
waste. During August he made daily observation trips through the department,
once in the morning, once in the afternoon, to inspect the output at each press.
On several occasions he found excessive burrs on plus coming from McMaster's
press due to a worn or rough die; on each occasion he told her about it and
stopped her machine so that a new die could be installed in it. This was not
unusual ; he found the same condition at other presses. However, even though
he knew several days before August 31 that McMaster's production was below
par, he admits that he did not warn her about it or discuss ways of eliminating
her excessive output of scrap. Kreker had told all the operators in group meet-
ings during June, July, and August that production must be improved and scrap
reduced, and that those operators who had continually high waste would have
to be replaced. However, this general warning to all employees did not acquaint
the poorer operators with their particular records or bring home to them the
likelihood of their discharge. When asked by the Trial Examiner why he did
not discuss their poor records with McMaster and other low producers individ-
ually, Kreker's only explanation was that he was still studying the daily reports
before making a final decision on the persons to be eliminated. This answer
indicates that he intended, after studying their daily records, to talk to the less
7I attach little significance to the production record of McMaster ' s press for the two
weeks following her discharge , as there is no proof that the new operator was working under
the same difficulties experienced by McMaster.
2100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
efficient producers about their work before dismissing them , which would have
been a reasonable procedure . It is significant that he did not follow this pro-
cedure in the case of McMaster!
Kreker claimed the decision to release McMaster was made about 2 days
before August 31, after talking only with Strauss, then president of Respondent,
not with her ; but no date for the discharge was set. He put the decision into
effect on the 31st, as soon as he heard that the bobbypin operators were going
to ask for a wage increase and that McMaster was acting as their spokesman
to arrange a conference for that purpose! Although no longer in Respondent's
employ, Strauss was not called to testify by Respondent . After considering all
the testimony on this point, I am compelled to discredit Kreker's testimony of
the fortuitous "decision" to discharge McMaster 2 days before the event. I am
impelled rather to the conclusion that this "decision" was fabricated by Re-
spondent to supply an important link in the normal sequence of events which
ordinarily portray a legal discharge for cause.
4. It is also significant that McMaster's alleged inefficiency was not mentioned
to her by Kreker on the 31st as the reason for discharge. He gave only her
alleged "dissatisfaction" with her work and working conditions as the reason.
Inefficiency was advanced by Respondent as the reason for the first time at
the hearing."
For the reasons discussed above, I conclude and find that McMaster's ineffi-
ciency was not the actual reason for her discharge. This leads to a consideration
of her alleged "dissatisfaction."
McMaster, Rew, and Wojdan testified without contradiction that McMaster
was not unhappy or dissatisfied with her work at the plant, that she felt friendly
toward the management , had no grievances against Respondent , and got along
well with the other employees. Kreker admitted that his only knowledge of her
"dissatisfaction" was based on statements from other individuals, but he did not
name his informants and no employee was produced by Respondent to testify
to any complaints or dissatisfaction by McMaster. Kreker also admitted that
McMaster never expressed to him personally any dissatisfaction with her work or
working conditions. I therefore conclude and find that McMaster was not a
troublemaker, as charged by Kreker, and was not personally dissatisfied with
her work. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Kreker refused
at the time of her discharge even to discuss McMaster's alleged "dissatisfaction,"
when she asked him what trouble she had made or how she was dissatisfied.
The only "dissatisfaction" she had expressed and he knew about, was her state-
ment a short while before to Foreman White, reported by him to Kreker, that
the bobbypin operators wanted to talk to Kreker about a wage increase , and her
s Since Respondent lacked an accurate record check on McMaster' s operations before
August 15 but had otherwise considered her a satisfactory employee for 2 years, Kreker's
failure to make any effort whatever to study the reasons for her bad performance and
assist her to improve it, after reviewing her record of August 15-31, is patently contrary
to Respondent's professed interest in and solicitude for its employees.
9In its brief Respondent claims "it just so happened that he discharged her after Mr.
White had come in with her message," but admits " the timing was bad."
11 1 discount Rreker's statement on cross -examination that be told her at the time of
discharge that Respondent was also not satisfied with her work . He did not assign this
as a reason on his direct examination , nor did he mention it in his statement to the field
examiner for the National Labor Relations Board; if she had in fact been discharged for
that reason , it can be assumed that he would have included that reason with supporting
facts in his statement to the Board investigators ; the fact that he did not warrants an
inference that that reason was not the motive for the discharge.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2101
request on their behalf that White arrange with Kreker for a conference with
them on that subject. From these facts I further conclude and find that the
concerted desire of the bobbypin operators, including McMaster, for a wage
increase and for a conference with management thereon was the "dissatisfaction"
Kreker had in mind but refused to discuss when he discharged McMaster abruptly
and without any warning. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that,
in his speech to the operators less than an hour later, Kreker mentioned their
discussion at the machines, and at once offered reasons why the Company could
not pay them more money, asked any dissatisfied employees to speak up, and
threatened to discharge any dissatisfied employee.
On the basis of all of the above facts and considerations, I therefore con-
clude and find that Kreker discharged McMaster because she acted in concert
with and as spokesman for the employees in her department in seeking to arrange
a confererence with management to discuss a wage increase. McMaster's con-
duct clearly constituted employee concerted activity for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection within the meaning of
Section 7 of the Act, and, by discharging her for engaging in such activity,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In addition, her discharge for acting as spokesman
of the employees in their concerted effort to bargain with Respondent on wages
was an unlawful discrimination by Respondent in regard to her hire and tenure
of employment, having the inevitable result of discouraging the employees from
self-organization or becoming members of a labor organization, which is the
customary instrument utilized by employees in the exercise of their rights to
engage in concerted activity for purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, and thus constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, even though the concerted activity did not result from any interest
or activity in a labor organization."
C. Kreker's speech to the employees
Almost immediately after McMaster was discharged by Kreker and ejected
from the plant cafeteria on his orders, Kreker met and spoke to the bobby-
pin operators as they came downstairs from the lunchroom. The meeting took
place around 12: 30 p. m., and about 30 press operators were present.
At the outset Kreker said, "Girls, let's get together and pull our hair down
and get this thing thrashed out here. What have we got to talk about?" He
then referred to the improved production and scrap situation in their depart-
ment, urging them to improve it further by eliminating more of the waste and
increasing production. He said the Company was losing money but the man-
agement was working hard to keep its employees at work and was doing every-
thing it could to make working conditions better. He reminded them that
they were receiving free coffee at noon, and announced that in a day or so
the Company was going to give them a 10-minute rest period in the afternoon
during which they would receive free coffee and cookies and could smoke in their
lunchroom on the third floor.
With regard to the purpose of the meeting, Kreker told the operators he under-
stood they had held a discussion at their machines that morning, and suggested
11 See, e. g., General Shale Products Corporation, 26 NLRB 921 . ; Worthington Creamery
and Produce Company, 52 NLRB 121; Texas Textile Mills, 58 NLRB 352; Morristown
Knitting Mills, 80 NLRB 731; Weis field's, Inc., 88 NLRB 541.
2102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that if any employees had any comments or were dissatisfied, they should speak
up and "get things off their chest." No one said anything except Mrs. Rew,
sister-in-law of McMaster, who stated the girls would be much happier if he
would call McMaster back to work. Kreker replied that he would not do so
because some employees had told him McMaster was a troublemaker, and he
could not have one girl disrupting the whole department. He also told them
that McMaster had been given her release because she was dissatisfied, and
the Company did not want any dissatisfied employees ; and that if anyone
was not satisfied with her pay or, working conditions, she could step up to the
office, get her pay and "call it a day."
With regard to employee meetings, he told the operators that "if anything
of major importance came up that we could discuss it at a group meeting but
we were too busy to have a group meeting just for trival things" and that if any
girl had a complaint or grievance "of that nature" on her mind she could come
into his office to see him, his door was always open.
On the subject of a wage increase, Kreker told the operators that the Com-
pany had been losing money and could not then afford to raise their wages,
but if it did more business and made more money, it would give them a raise
"automatically," without them asking for it.
I have found above that Kreker, before he made this speech to the press
operators, knew that they were dissatisfied with their wages and wished to
talk to him about a raise. , Kreker had just discharged McMaster for her at-
tempt to arrange a bargaining conference for the operators on that subject,
which conduct he had characterized as "dissatisfaction." When he told the
operators that this was the reason for McMaster's discharge, and then said
the Company would discharge any other employees who were dissatisfied, he
plainly threatened the operators with discharge if they indicated "dissatisfac-
tion" with their wages and spoke up for the group, as McMaster had done."
When this statement was made in a group meeting of employees called for the
purpose of discussing wages, right after the discriminatory discharge of their
spokesman who arranged the meeting, it was clearly calculated and designed
to discourage any concerted activity of the employees toward securing a wage
increase. By such conduct Respondent coerced and restrained its employees in
the exercise of the right of self-organization and to engage in other concerted
activity for purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protec-
tion, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act."
Kreker's suggestions in the same speech that the operators should not hold
group meetings to discuss "trivial things" (such as a wage increase) but that
the employees should come to him individually to discuss such matters, and
that the Company would voluntarily give them a raise in pay "automatically"
when it could afford it, without them asking for it, were direct admonitions to
the operators not to engage in collective bargaining or concerted activity, and
were clearly intended to discourage further concerted activity or collective
bargaining, to encourage individual bargaining, and to emphasize to the em-
ployees that it would be better for them to rely upon the unilateral bounty
and generosity of Respondent to secure wage increases and other benefits.
Coming on the heels of the discriminatory, discharge of their spokesman and
coupled with threats of discharge of any others who acted similarly on behalf
12 Rew testified that , she considered Kreker's statement a threat.
See Coca-Cola Bottling Worka, 46 NLRB 180.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2103
of the employees or expressed dissatisfaction with their wages, these remarks
were clearly coercive and violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.14
Kreker's offer in the course of the speech to give the operators an additional
rest period with free refreshments in the afternoon amounted to a promise of
extended benefits to the employees if they desisted from further concerted
activity, when considered with his advice against holding group meetings and
suggestion of individual bargaining. Such. conduct is likewise an interference
with and coercion of the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them
by Section 7• of the Act.16
I therefore find that Respondent, by Kreker's threats, suggestions, and offer to
the employees Outlined above, has interfered with, coerced, and restrained its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act,
and that Respondent has thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE.
It is found that the activities of Respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
,obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, the Trial Examiner
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
The Trial Examiner has found that Respondent discriminated against Florence
McMaster in regard to her hire and tenure of employment because of her con-
certed activity with and on behalf of other employees, thereby discouraging
concerted activity by the employees for their mutual aid and protection. This
discharge was found to be a violation of both Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. For purposes of effectuating the policies of the Act, however, the
remedy for a discriminatory discharge is the same, whether it be predicated upon
a violation of one section or the other or, as here, upon both. It will therefore
be recommended that Respondent offer to Florence McMaster immediate 'and
full reinstatement to her former position or substantailly equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and that
Respondent make her whole for any loss of earnings she may -have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum
equal to that which she would have earned from the date of the discrimination
against her to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during
that period.16
14 See , e. g., Standard Hat'Company, IT NLRB 883 ; Columbia Baking Company, 51 NLRB .
485; W. E. Lipshutz, doing business as The Monarch Company, 56 NLRB 1749, affirmed
149 F. 2d 141 (C. A. 5).
15 It is just as illegal for an employer to induce its employees to forego collective bar-
gaining or self -organization by favors promised or bestowed as by threats or domination.
Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 321 U. S.. 678, 686; Western Cartridge
Company v. N. L. R. B., 44 NLRB 1, enforced 134 F. (2d) 240, 244, certiorari denied,
320 U. S. 746; Hudson Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1434.
1e Some testimony was adduced by both parties regarding the attempts of McMaster to
secure other employment after her discharge , but at the suggestion of the Trial Examiner
2104 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record does not disclose any antiunion activity or other conduct by the
Respondent violative of the Act, prior to the events of August 31, '1949, de-
scribed above. However, the illegal actions of Respondent on that date, although
concentrated into a period of several hours and directed toward the employees
of only one department, were of such a nature as to indicate to me that the
Respondent is of a mind to defeat self-organization and concerted activity of
its employees by whatever means. The right to engage in self-organization afid
concerted activity is of the very essence of the Act, and any conduct which rea-
sonably tends or is designed to discourage or stifle the exercise of this basic
right is indicative of an attitude hostile to the general purposes of the Act. I
am convinced by the above-described conduct and attitude of Respondent that
there is substantial danger that Respondent may in the future commit similar
or other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. In that situation, the
preventive purposes of the Act would be thwarted unless the Board's order is
coextensive with the threat. The Trial Examiner will therefore recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Flor-
ence McMaster because she engaged in concerted activities with and on behalf
of other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection, Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and Re-
spondent has thereby engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. By engaging in such discrimination, thereby discouraging formation of and
membership in labor organizations, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, to the extent herein
found to be violative of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that Smith Victory Corporation,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging concerted activity among its employees or formation of
and membership in any labor organization of its employees by discriminatorily
the point was not thoroughly explored, inasmuch as the Trial Examiner took the position
that the resolution of the amount of back pay due, if any, was a matter for investigation
by the parties and the Board in the compliance stage of the proceeding.' The Trial
Examiner therefore makes no finding on this point. See Montgomery Hardwood Flooring
Company, Inc., 72 NLRB 113,115; The Cuiman Lumber Company, Inc.. 82 NLRB 296, 300.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION 2105
discharging its employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their em-
ployment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to. self-organization , to form, join , or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection , as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Florence McMaster immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges , and make said employee whole for any loss of pay
she may have suffered by reason of Respondent ' s discrimination against her,
by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would
have earned as wages from Respondent from the date of her discharge to the date
of her reinstatement or Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings
during that period;
(b) Post in its plant in Buffalo, New York, copies of the notice attached to this
Report and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Third Region, shall , after being duly signed by Re-
spondent 's representative , be posted by • Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by,Respondent 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 Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing within 10
.( 10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless within ten ( 10) days from the receipt of
this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in
writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty ( 20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Washington 25,
D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
-exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as,he relies upon,
together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and
any party may, within the same period , file an original and six copies of a brief
in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such
statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and
briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon
and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed , and if mimeographed shall be
double spaced . Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with
the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further
provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue
2106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its,:findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 15th day of May 1950..
EUGENE F. FREY,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activity among our employees by dis-
charging any of them or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives 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 Florence McMaster immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against
her.
All of our employees are free to form, join, or assist any labor organization
and to become or remain members of any labor organization, and to engage in
any self-organization and other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
SMITH VICTORY CORPORATION,
Emploper.
Dated -------------------- By ---------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.