The Warren Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED and DISTRICT
LODGE No. 46, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
Case No. 10-CA-6&&.Decided June 30,1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 14, 1950, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate 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. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allega-
tions. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and the Union filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Re-
port. The Respondent also requested oral argument. This request
is hereby denied because, in our opinion, the record, exceptions, and
brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, the Union's brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications :
1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent discharged and refused to reinstate Robert Andrews, Tru-
man Davis, Johnnie Haynes, and Edgar Hembree, and denied employ-
ment to John Kent because of their union membership and activities,
and that it thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. We also adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Union, at
all times material herein, was the representative of a majority of the
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 case to a three -member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
90 NLRB No. 96.
903847-51-vol. 90-45 689
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit,2 and that the Respond-
ent's refusal to recognize the Union on November 20, 1948, unless and
until its majority was established in a Board-directed election, was not
motivated by a good faith doubt of the Union's majority status .3 We
therefore find that the Respondent, since November 20, 1948, has
refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent,
independently of its refusal to bargain and its discrimination in regard
to the hire and tenure of its employees, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act by its interrogation of employee Hembree concerning his rea-
sons for joining the. Union.
In addition, the record discloses, as the Trial Examiner found, that
Virgil P. Warren II, the Respondent's production manager and assist-
ant to the president, engaged in the following conduct, which was
clearly unlawful, but which was inadvertently not found to be violative
of the Act :
(a) Asking employees Smelley and Reeves if any reports of a union
had come to their attention;
(b) Warning employee Hembree that the Respondent would never
have a union in the plant; and
(c) Telling Hembree to consider the Respondent's position on the
subject of unionzation before pressing his request for work.
We therefore predicate our finding of a violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) on all the foregoing conduct. We conclude that the Respondent
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
The Remedy
We have found, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent
illegally discharged and refused to reinstate Andrews, Davis, Haynes,
and Hembree, and illegally denied employment to Kent. Therefore,
2 We find , substantially in accord with the Trial Examiner , that all tool and die makers,
machinists , die setters, helpers, and apprentices employed at the Respondent ' s plant in
Atlanta, Georgia , excluding clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
8 Although , on January 5, 1949 , the Respondent finally agreed to the holding of a consent
election, this did not constitute evidence of good faith as the Respondent's previous dis-
criminatory conduct had clearly demonstrated its bad faith and antiunion animus. More-
over , the Union was not precluded from withdrawing from the consent election agreement
several days later and seeking relief in a complaint proceeding when it perceived the
impact of the Respondent ' s prior unfair labor practices on the employees involved and
particularly when it learned of the hiring of Roberts and Rucker as replacements for the
discharged employees. Everett Van Ifleeck & Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 785.
THE WARREN' COMPANY, INCORPORATED 691
in accordance with the recommendation of the Trial Examiner, we
shall direct the Respondent to reinstate the dischargees to their former
or substantially equivalent positions and to offer employment to Kent,
witliout prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
dismissing, if necessary, all replacements hired on or after November
9, 1948, and not employees of the Respondent on that date. We shall,
however, provide further that, if, despite such reduction in force, there
are not sufficient substantially equivalent positions available,5 all
existing positions shall be distributed among these five individuals,
without discrimination against any of them because of his union affilia-
tion or activities, in accordance with a system of seniority or other
nondiscriminatory practice as may heretofore have been applied in
the conduct of the Respondent's business . Any of these individuals
for whom no employment is immediately available shall be placed on
a preferential hiring list and offered reemployment as work becomes
available and before other persons are hired for such work, in the order
determined among them by such nondiscriminatory system or
practice.'
We shall also order the Respondent to make whole the complainants
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against them. In accordance with the formula
promulgated in F. W. Woolworth Company,? and for the reasons
stated therein, we shall order that the loss of pay suffered by each of the
complainants be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quar-
ter or portion thereof during the period from the date of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against him to the date of a proper offer of rein-
statement or placement on the preferential hiring list. 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 suin equal to that which the complainants nor-
mally would have earned as wages during each such quarter or por-
tions thereof, their respective net earnings, if any, during the same
period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon
the back-pay liability for' any other quarter.
4 Although Hembree was rehired on November 18, 1948, and remained in the Respond-
ent's employ until December 17 or 18 , 1948 , this did not constitute a valid offer of rein-
statement . Unlike the Trial Examiner , we find, as the Respondent contended , that Hem-
bree was rehired only on a temporary basis. Therefore , we conclude that he was not
restored to his former or substantially equivalent position. See Precast Slab and Tile
Company, 88 NLRB 1237.
In the case of Kent , such rights and privileges shall date from November 11, 1948, the
date on which he was discriminatorily denied employment.
5 Inasmuch as Kent , if hired, would have been a replacement for one of the four discrimi-
natorily discharged employees , there is a likelihood that sufficient jobs for all five indi-
viduals are not currently available.
6 See Pacific Gamble-Robinson Company, 88 NLRB 482.
7 90 NLRB 289.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We shall further order, in accordance with the Woolworth decision,8
that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board and its
agents all records pertinent to an analysis of the amounts of back pay
due and the rights of reinstatement.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Warren Company,
Incorporated, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in District Lodge No. 46, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, or in any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of
its employees, by denying employment to applicants, or by discrim-
inating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with District Lodge No. 46,
International Association of Machinists, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all its tool and die makers, machinists, die setters,
helpers, and apprentices, excluding clerical employees, professional
,employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act;
(c) Interrogating its employees as to union activity in the plant
and their reasons for wanting a union; warning its employees that it
will not have a union in its plant; and suggesting withdrawal from
the Union as a condition of employment;
(d) In any other manner interefering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist District Lodge No. 46, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
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 of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, 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 :
8 Supra, note 7.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 693
(a) Offer to Robert Andrews, Truman Davis, Johnnie Haynes,
and Edgar Hembree, in the manner set forth in the section entitled
The Remedy, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges;
(b) Offer to John Kent, in the manner set forth in the section
entitled The Remedy, the position discriminatorily denied him or a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Robert Andrews, Truman Davis, Johnnie Haynes,
Edgar Hembree, and John Kent, in the manner set forth in the
section entitled The Remedy, for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against them;
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with District Lodge No. 46,
International Association of Machinists, as the exclusive representa-
tive of the above-mentioned employees and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement;
(e) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
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 rights of reinstatement under the terms of this
Order ;
(f) Post at its plant and office in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A.9 Copies of said
notice. to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth 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 sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicious places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material ;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges other
violations of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
D In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall he inserted before the words. "A Decision and Order, the words,
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing."
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
I1TE WILL NOT discourage membership in DISTRICT LODGE No. 46,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , or in any other labor
organization , by'discharging and refusing to reinstate any of our
employees , by denying employment to applicants , or by discrim-
inating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
`'WTE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to union activity in
our plant or their reasons for wanting a union; warn our employ-
ees that we will not have a union in our plant; or suggest with-
drawal from the union as a condition of employment.
WVE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations , to join or assist DISTRICT
LODGE No. 46, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
senta .titves of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all of 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
employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
AVE WILL offer to the individuals named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them, as
set forth in the Decision and Order :
Robert Andrews Johnnie Haynes
Truman Davis Edgar Hembree
WE WILL offer to the individual named below immediate and
full employment in the position discriminatorily denied him or
in a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges he would have enjoyed
in the absence of our discrimination against him, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination
against him , as set forth in the Decision and Order.
John Kent
THE WARREN COMPANT, INCORPORATED 695
IVE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, With DISTRICT
LODGE No. 46, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described herein, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is:
All tool and die makers, machinists, die setters, helpers, !,ncl
apprentices, excluding clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming members of the above-named union or any other labor organi-
zation, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agree-
ment in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
By ------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. James W. Mackle, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Paul Chipman, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Weekes and Candler, by Mr. John Wesley Weekes, of Decatur, Ga., for Re-
spondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on February 9, 1949, by District Lodge No. 46,
International Association of Machinists, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated October 21, 1949,
:aaginst The Warren Company, Incorporated, Atlanta, Georgia, herein called
Respondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon Respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
Respondent : ( 1) Discharged R. R. Andrews, T. W. Davis, and J. L. Haynes on
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
November 9, 1948, and E. A. Hembree on November 10, 1948, and refused to
employ John C. Kent on November 11, 1948, because of their union membership
and union and concerted activities; (2) on or about November 8, 1948, refused
on request to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated repre-
sentative of a majority of its employees in an appropriate unit; and (3) on and
after November 9, 1948, interrogated its employees concerning their union
membership and activities, threatened and warned its employees to refrain
from assisting, joining, or remaining members of the Union, and granted a
Christmas vacation with pay in order to discourage membership in the Union.
Respondent filed an answer on October 27, 1949, wherein it admitted the allega-
tions of the complaint with respect to the nature and extent of its business
operations ; admitted that it had discharged Andrews, Davis, Haynes, and
Hembree and had refused to employ Kent ; admitted that it had refused to
bargain collectively with the Union; and denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices. The answer alleged affirmatively as a basis for the refusal to
bargain that the Union had never been the duly designated representative of
the employees in an appropriate unit and that there was no obligation on the
part of the Respondent to bargain with the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 22 and 23, 1949, at
Atlanta, Georgia, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Re-
spondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its representative ; all
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the conclusion of the case for the General Counsel, Respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: (1) No evidence had been adduced
to sustain the allegations thereof; (2) it had not been proved that the Union
was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act; and (3) the General
Counsel had not established that the charging Union was in compliance with the
filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The General
Counsel stated on the record that it had been administratively determined that
the Union was in compliance with the aforesaid filing requirements at the time
the complaint was issued. Respondent's motion was denied with leave to renew
at the conclusion of the hearing, insofar as it urged a dismissal on the merits.
The motion was renewed in its entirety at the conclusion of the hearing and was
again denied insofar as it alleged a failure of proof that the Union was a labor
organization and of compliance with the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h).' Ruling was again reserved on that portion of the motion which urged a
dismissal on the merits and it is disposed of by the findings hereinafter made.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned granted a motion by the
General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to formal
matters. The parties were then advised of their right to present oral argument
on the record but waived such presentation. The parties were also afforded
an opportunity to submit briefs and/or proposed findings and conclusions to the
undersigned ; a brief has been received from the Union together with 14 proposed
findings which are actually proposed findings and conclusions and are accepted.
Subsequent to the close of the hearing, the Union moved for the correction of
I The Board has decided that the question of compliance with the filing requirements of
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act is one for administrative determination
and is not litigable by the parties. Pawls Valley Milling Company. 82 NLRB 1258. and
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Supplemental Decision and Certification of Rep-
resentatives ), 86 NLRB 428.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 697
certain errors in the transcript of testimony and the motion was granted without
objection.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Warren Company, Incorporated, is a Georgia corporation whose principal
office and place of business is located at Atlanta, Georgia, where it is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paint and refrigerator products.
During the year 1948. Respondent purchased raw materials consisting principally
of aluminum, copper, steel, brass, rubber, and lumber, valued in excess of
$2,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent was purchased and shipped to its
plant from points outside the State of Georgia. During the same period, Re-
spondent manufactured and sold finished products consisting principally of
refrigeration equipment and paint valued in excess of $5,000,000 of which ap-
proximately 80 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the State of
Georgia.
The undersigned finds that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District Lodge No. 46, International Association of Machinists, is a labor organ-
ization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges and refusal to hire; interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Introduction; Respondent's plant and supervisory structure
The instant proceeding stems from the attempt of the Union to organize the
employees in that portion of Respondent 's plant known as the machine shop.
The issues are whether or not as a resa:t of t:as organizational campaign
Respondent discharged four employees , refused to hire a fifth , interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees because of their union activity , and refused
to bargain with the Union which allegedly represented a majority of the em-
ployees in said machine shop.
As stated , Respondent is engaged in its plant in the manufacture of refrigera-
tion equipment and paint . The machine shop, also known as the tool and die
shop, is partitioned off physically from the manufacturing operations in the rest
of the plant; the work there is apparently typical of most machine shop work
in that tools , dies, and special fixtures are built and repaired . This includes dies
for new models to be manufactured by Respondent as well as the repair of dies
for old models . In addition , a large percentage of tools used in Respondent's
manufacturing operations are made there . At the time material herein, there
were in excess of 300 production employees in Respondent ' s plant, which number
on the date of the instant hearing had been reduced to approximately 300.
Virgil P. Warren II, who is assistant to the president and is in charge of pro-
duction , testified that he is the primary authority in personnel matters and that
he did "all the hiring and firing ". Warren 2 does not communicate directly with
2 Not to be confused with Virgil P. Warren, Sr ., who is president of Respondent and
chairman of the board . All references are to Warren II unless otherwise indicated.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees to be discharged but rather makes the decisions which are carried out
by his subordinates.
Respondent employs a mechanical engineer named Shaw who is in over-all
charge of all mechanical equipment, tools, dies and designing, but does not
directly supervise personnel in the machine shop. Shaw does not hire or fire
employees but the record reveals, as Warren admitted, that Shaw has authority
to make recommendations concerning the hiring or firing of employees and his
recommendations are given consideration. Furthermore, as appears below,
Shaw's recommendations concerning the hiring of personnel have been given effec-
tive consideration by Warren. Tom Green is foreman of the machine shop and
directs the personnel therein in the performance of their work. He makes recom-
mendations concerning hiring and firing of personnel and these recommendations
are given, according to Warren, "a great deal of weight." There is also evidence
that he has on occasion discharged employees.
Respondent's machine shop payroll for the workweek ending November 10,
1948, lists the names of nine persons. Seven are listed as machinists and one
as a helper; however, as appears below, the employee classified as a helper,
Findlay, was actually not a helper but a machinist. These eight persons
assisted the ninth, O. E. Wages, a die maker, in the making of dies. Wages, also
classified as a die maker, had duties which were beyond those of a rank-and-file
employee. According to Warren, blueprints for work to be performed were
turned over by Foreman Green to Wages who in turn assigned the work to the
various men and assisted them when necessary. According to Wages' uncon-
troverted and credited testimony, Green was absent from the shop for 3 to 4
hours at a time, was present in the shop but 40 to 50 percent of the time, and
during Green's long absences, men from other portions of the plant who desired
a certain job to be done would discuss it with Wages instead of with Green as
was the case when Green was present. Moreover, when Green was absent,
Wages assigned the men in the machine shop to the particular task to be done,
although it does appear that Wages made such assignments even when Green
was present. The record further indicates that not infrequently employees of
the machine shop worked evenings or week ends under Wages' direction and that
on such occasions no superior of Wages was present. Wages entered Respond-
ent's employ in 1946 on a salaried basis and was the only one in the shop who
was paid a salary which, on the basis of a 40-hour week, was in excess of the
weekly earnings of every other man in the shop. There is also evidence that
employees on entering Respondent's employ were informed that Wages was in
charge of dies. Although the question is close, the undersigned believes and
finds that Wages was a supervisory employee with authority to responsibly
direct the other employees in the machine shop. It is further found that Shaw
and Foreman Green were supervisory employees within the meaning of the
Act with authority to responsibly direct employees. Ohio Power Co. v. N. L. R.
B., 176 F. 2d 385 (C. A. 6), cert. den. 338 U. S. 899.
2. The organizational campaign ; sequence of events
On October 7 or 8, 1948, two machinists contacted F. H. King, business rep-
resentative of the Union, and urged him to organize the employees of the ma-
chine shop. King met with five or six of the machine shop employees near the
plant, on the afternoon of October 8, verified their interest in organization by
the Union, and distributed union authorization cards to the group. He stated
that if the men signed the cards he would work in their behalf.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 699
Shortly thereafter, King was notified that the men desired to meet with him
again and a meeting was arranged for October 12 and duly held. Six machine
shop employees were present. They included Andrews, Davis, Haynes, and
Hembree, alleged herein to have been discriminatorily discharged on November
9 and 10, 1948, as well as Edward Whitehead and E. L. Reeves, all of whom
signed authorization cards on this occasion. A seventh card, that of Machinist
C. A. Smelley, was signed elsewhere by Smelley on or about October 12 and
turned in to King. As is apparent, King then had seven authorization cards from
all rank-and-file employees of the machine shop save one, Findlay, who had
become a transfer member of the Union in September.
The Union held its regular meeting on the evening of October 28, 1948, and
five of the seven who bad signed authorization cards were initiated into member-
ship. The sixth, Whitehead, was also present and paid his initiation fee but
found it necessary to leave during the evening and was therefore not initiated.
The seventh, Smelley, never became a member of the Union and there is a conflict
as to whether he paid his initiation fee. However, a decision as to who were
actually initiated on October 28 is immaterial to the issues herein.
On November 8, 1948, King wrote to V. P. Warren (apparently Sr.), stating
that a majority of the "Tool & Die Makers, Machinists and Maintenance Em-
ployees" had designated the Union as their collective bargaining representative
and requested a conference to discuss an agreement concerning wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. According to the uncontroverted testimony of Warren
(II), this communication was not received until 2:30 on the afternoon of
November 10. On November 9, however, Andrews, Davis, and Haynes were ter-
minated at the close of the day. Each was paid in full by check and given a
letter stating, inter aria, that "Due to the completion of the greater majority of
the dies and tools necessary for the manufacture of our 1949 models, We find
it necessary to reduce the amount of personnel in our Tool and Die Department."
The letter, which was unsolicited, praised their work and offered them assistance
in seeking other employment as well as references to other employers. Hembree
was terminated in similar fashion on the morning of November 10, and John
Kent was denied employment on November 11.
On November 13, Respondent' s counsel herein, John Wesley Weekes, replied to
King and acknowledged receipt of his letter to Warren. Weekes stated his belief
that a majority of the employees in the categories described by the Union in its
letter of November S had not designated the Union as their collective bargaining
representative and as a result declined to enter into a collective bargaining con-
ference with the Union. King at this point turned over the matter to Paul
Chipman, Grand Lodge Representative of the Union, who arranged a conference
with Weekes for November 20. The conference was held as scheduled and
although the details appear below, it may be stated here that there was no agree-
ment on recognition. A petition for certification of representatives was filed
by the Union on or about November 23, 1948, and on January 5, 1949, Respondent
and the Union entered into an agreement for a consent election. On January 8,
1949, Chipman, having discovered that Respondent had hired several new em-
ployees subsequent to November 9, 1948, withdrew from the consent election
agreement and later filed the charge on which the instant proceeding is bottomed.
3. The four discharges on November 9 and 10
The parties are in agreement that those named in the complaint were termi-
nated and denied employment respectively on the dates indicated in the com-
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plaint. The only issue is whether this was done as Respondent contends for
economic reasons or on the other hand, as contended by the General Counsel, for
discriminatory reasons.
Truman Davis, J. L. Haynes, and Robert Andrews, whose employment was
terminated on November 9, 1948, entered Respondent's employ during the summer
and fall of 1948. Edgar Hembree, whose employment was terminated on Novem-
ber 10, 1948, entered Respondent's employ during 1945.' All four worked in the
machine shop and were admittedly competent employees. In fact, Andrews had
received a wage increase less than 1 month prior to his termination. Their com-
petence was such that it was Respondent's admitted intent to recall them to work
when business conditions warranted such a recall. All four had attended the
union meeting of October 12 and had signed authorization cards on that occa-
sion. Similarly, all were initiated into membership in the Union at the meeting
held on October 28, 1948, and it was Haynes and Andrews, according to the recol-
lection of Business Representative King, who had first contacted him early in
October and urged the organization of the employees of Respondent.
Their termination took place under the following circumstances. The dura-
tion of Respondent's workweek is from Thursday to Wednesday and the week
during which the four men were terminated ended on Wednesday, November 10,
1948. Wages were customarily paid in cash on the Friday following the close
of the workweek which in this instance would have been Friday, November 1.2.
Late on the afternoon of Tuesday, November 9, the men were engaged in the
completion of the day's work and preparing to punch out, save for Davis and
Andrews who 15 or 20 minutes earlier had been directed by Wages to remain
overtime that evening and work on a die; this Wages had done at the express
instruction of Foreman Green. However, just prior to punch-out time Foreman
Green intervened with a change of plans. Green announced that the men were
wanted in the office and instructed Davis, Andrews, and Haynes, as well as two
other employees of the machine shop, Smelley and Reeves, to accompany him
there. As the men proceeded in the direction of the office, they were divided
into two groups. Davis, Andrews, and Haynes were sent to the office of Assistant
Bookkeeper and Personnel Manager Venable, who customarily pays off discharged
,employees. Two other employees from the plant's production department, whose
names the record does not disclose, were also present in Venable's office and the
group of five waited for a period of time.
According to the credited testimony of Smelley, he and Reeves were instructed
by Green to proceed to Warren's office. Green, who had proceeded to Venable's
office with the other group immediately left the group and joined Smelley and
Reeves in Warren's office and in the latter's presence4 Warren proceeded to
ask Smelley and Reeves if any reports of a union had come to. their attention.
Smelley replied that he was familiar only with the machine shop and that he
understood ". . . all the shop force had signed these cards.. . ." Warren in-
structed the men to return to the shop which they did, and, as the workday was
at that time over, Smelley and Reeves left the plant.
Foreman Green immediately left Warren's office and went to the office of
.Venable where, after his arrival, Venable without comment distributed checks
8 Hembree's uncontroverted testimony . Hembree did make out a work application in
1947 , but it appears that Respondent required its employees to fill these out at this later
date.
4 Neither Green nor Reeves testified in this proceeding, although at least Green was
available . Warren was not questioned concerning this incident.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 701'
to Davis, Andrews, and Haynes covering their earnings to date. Also handed to
each was a letter signed by Warren which stated :
Due to the completion of the greater majority of the dies and tools neces-
sary for the manufacture of our 1949 models, we find it necessary to reduce
the amount of personnel in our Tool and Die Department.
I can assure you that we appreciate your efforts in our behalf and if, at
any time, we are in need of further assistance, we will be very glad to get
in touch with you.
Also, to aid you in obtaining further employment, our personnel department
will be glad to talk with anyone to whom you might apply for a job.
We regret very much that this action is necessary, but we are sure that
you can understand our position.
The three men then left the plant but returned the following morning, Novem-
ber 10, and requested their jobs. Green informed each that he would have to
return at a later date because there were no openings.
The case of Hembree is substantially similar to that of the other three. On
November 9, he had started to Venable's office with Davis, Haynes, and Andrews,
but was stopped by Green who stated that there was no need of his accompanying
the group. Hembree proceeded home and reported for work at the usual time
on the following morning, November 10. He discovered that his time card was
absent from the rack and asked Green for an explanation. Green replied that
he had something more important for Hembree than his time card and handed
him a check, covering payment of his wages to date, as well as a letter identical
with that handed to Davis, Andrews, and Haynes on the previous day and quoted
above.
Although Respondent's contentions are discussed and analyzed below, one item
merits consideration at this point. Warren claimed that he had no knowledge
whatsoever of union activities in the plant at the time the men were terminated.
Be testified that the first knowledge he had of any union activities in the plant
was on the afternoon of November 10 when he received the letter from the Union
announcing its representation of a majority of employees and requesting a bar-
gaining conference. It is readily apparent, however, that the record does not
support this claim for as stated above, on the afternoon of November 9 and
immediately prior to the discharge of the three men, Warren questioned Smelley
in his office concerning the latter's knowledge of union activities in the plant and
was informed that the machine shop force had signed cards. In view of this,
Warren's testimony is not credited and the undersigned finds that Warren had
some knowledge, at least, of the union activities prior to his questioning of
Smelley on the afternoon of November 9 and prior to discharging Davis, Haynes,
and Andrews.
None of the four were recalled to Respondent's employ ; however, Hembree,
on November 17 and on his own initiative, went to the plant, spoke to both
Warren II and Warren Sr., and informed them that he needed work. Warren
II replied that he definitely would not have a union in the plant and that Hembree
should consider Warren's position on the subject of unionization before pressing
his request for work. Warren admitted that he asked Hembree on this occasion
why he had joined the Union and informed him that he did not desire to have "a
closed shop and a contract with the Union." Hembree left but returned later
the same day and announced his willingness to commence work, whereupon
Warren directed that he be put to work on November 18. Hembree remained
702 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at work until December 17 or 18,1948, when he was again discharged. He has not
since worked for or been offered employment by Respondent.'
4. The failure to employ John Kent
In the view of the undersigned, the termination of the -four employees on
November 9 and 10 and the failure to employ John Kent on November 11, 1948,
are related. Therefore, the facts in the case of Kent are set forth at this point
and the cases of all five will be resolved below. The findings herein are based
upon the credited and uncontroverted testimony of Kent.
Kent was a machinist who was experienced in repairing tools and dies and
who had previously worked at another plant and at the same bench with Shaw,
Respondent's mechanical engineer ; Shaw at that time was employed as a tool
and die maker. It will be recalled that Davis, Haynes, and Andrews were
terminated on November 9 and Hembree on the morning of November 10,
allegedly for lack of work. Sometime during the day of November 10, Shaw
telephoned Kent's home and left word for Kent to get in touch with him if he,
Kent, desired employment with Respondent. Kent, who at the time was em-
ployed elsewhere, telephoned Shaw on the evening of November 10. Shaw then
informed him that there was an opening for Kent and that Kent, if interested,
should visit him at the plant on the following morning, November 11.
The following morning Kent reported to the plant as requested. Shaw was
not in his office but Kent met Foreman Green who apparently was familiar
with the reason for Kent's presence in the plant because they proceeded to
discuss the wage rates paid there and "about some men having left there. . . ."
Kent asked Green why the men had been discharged and Green replied "As you
know, we are not organized out here and we lost them." Kent inquired whether
their work had been faulty and Green replied that such was not the case.' The
two proceeded to Shaw's office to await the latter's return, continuing in the
interim their conversation. Kent explained to Green that he was a member
of the Union, that he did not wish to withdraw therefrom, and that if it made
any difference he did not desire the job with Respondent. Green assured him
that he had a right to belong to the Union and offered Kent a position at an
hourly rate of $1.55. Kent did not accept the offer immediately, but shortly
thereafter Shaw appeared on the scene and all three agreed that Kent would
start at that figure. Kent then filled out an application in Venable's office and
Green stated that he would be called in if his application was "all right."
Kent was given a plant badge and a locker number but voluntarily returned the
badge to Green, stating that he did not wish a badge until he learned that he
would actually be called in to work. Shaw informed Kent that he would tele-
phone him that evening if his "references were satisfactory."
6 Warren claimed that lie informed Hembree on November 17 that he could offer him
but 6 or 7 weeks' work ; the undersigned accepts Hembree's version which is silent on this
topic. In any event, no findings adverse to Respondent are made with respect to Hembree's
termination on December 17 or 18, 1948. Warren's denial that he stated Respondent
would not have a union in the plant is not credited.
6 Respondent contended that Warren was solely responsible for the hiring and firing of
employees and was the only person competent to bind Respondent by his statements. This
overlooks the fact, as set forth above, that Green was a supervisory employee, foreman
of this very department, and that Green's recommendations to Warren concerning hiring
and firing in this department were given a great deal of weight. In fact, both Shaw and
Green made recommendations concerning crucial transfers of employees, discussed below,
which Warren approved.
THE' WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 703
Later that day, Venable telephoned Kent's home, stating that the situation
had changed and left word for Kent to call the plant. Kent returned the call
whereupon Venable informed him that the situation had changed and that.
Respondent had decided to hold up on the type of work which Kent was to do.
Kent asked if his references had been found satisfactory and Venable replied
that they had, on which note the conversation ended. Kent was not contacted
again by any representative of Respondent.
5. Contentions and analysis
As stated, Respondent's basic position is that Haynes, Andrews, and Davis were
discharged on November 9 and Hembree on November 10, 1948, solely because
of the fact that Respondent's sales were decreasing and that Respondent, as a
result, found it necessary to reduce its personnel. However, Respondent's conduct
during and after this crucial period was in a number of significant respects in-
consistent with its position herein. A majority of these are listed below.
(a) Warren contended that because of decreased sales he reduced his machine
shop staff by four men. Although this decision was made, according to Warren,
on November 9 or earlier that week, he allegedly had planned the reduction for
some time because of steadily declining business. He claimed that he had with-
held this action until business figures showed that a propitious time had arrived
in addition to awaiting the completion of certain dies.
Warren claimed that in every instance he endeavored to retain help as long as
possible and that in many instances he did not discharge employees as soon as
business decreased. In this particular instance, according to Warren, sales had
been decreasing for 3 or 4 months ; yet on November 9, the date that the discharge
letters were prepared, Warren for the first time proposed to Foreman Green that
these particular employees be discharged and he and Green mutually agreed on
their choice. Although Respondent does not customarily give advance notice to
employees who are to be discharged, Respondent's decision to terminate the men
was most precipitate because it was arrived at and carried out during the work-
week and while the Union's request for recognition was on its way to Respondent.
(b) The record does not support Respondent's position that there was a need to
reduce personnel in its machine shop. Not only is the converse established by
the fact that Respondent proceeded to almost immediately recruit three new
employees, as discussed below, but the record further shows that there was ample
work in the machine shop at the time. It is true that sales and shipments from
Respondent's production department had decreased somewhat in the preceding
months, but it is clear that such decreases do not affect the quantity of work in
the machine shop, where customarily in slack periods broken dies are repaired
and similar work performed. In fact, on the very day Foreman Green had in-
structed Wages to have two men work overtime that evening and this instruction
had been relayed by Wages to those selected, Davis and Andrews, but 15 or 20
minutes prior to their discharge. This leads the undersigned to conclude that
the decision to discharge the four men was arrived at very quickly late on the
afternoon of November 9, for, as Warren testified, he and Green mutually agreed
on November 9 on the selection of those for discharge. Clearly, this must have
taken place after Green had given orders to have two men work overtime that
evening. This only serves to further rebut Respondent's contention that it had
planned a reduction in its machine shop force for some time.
(c) Warren's claim that reduced operations warranted a reduction in per-
sonnel is further rebutted by the abortive attempt of John Kent to enter Re-
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent's employ. It will be recalled that the decision to terminate the four
employees for economic reasons was made no later that November 9 and in the
view of the undersigned, was probably made late on the afternoon of November 9.
Despite the reason advanced by Respondent for terminating the four em-
ployees on November 9 and 10, Mechanical Engineer Shaw offered John Kent, a
machinist whose ability was known to Shaw, a position in Respondent's machine
shop on the evening of November 10. The men previously terminated were
admittedly competent employees whom Respondent would willingly have reem-
ployed, and to whom Respondent on its own initiative gave a highly commend-
atory letter of reference although it was not Respondent's custom to give such
letters absent a request for such. Nevertheless, Respondent saw fit on the
evening of November 10 to offer a position as machinist to a man who had never
been in its employ.
Warren claimed that Mechanical Engineer Shaw and Foreman Green had
arranged for the hiring of Kent ; that when he saw the papers concerning
Kent on his desk, he stopped the matter ; that he informed Shaw and Green
that the proper thing to do was to rehire one of those recently discharged ;
and that as a result Kent was not hired and Hembree was rehired. This
claim is refuted by the record in two respects. Firstly, Respondent's hiring
procedures, as explained in detail by Warren, are such that the foreman or
supervisor must first obtain Warren's approval of his request to hire a new
employee before the man is recruited. Obviously, Warren approved the request
to hire Kent before he was contacted. Secondly, Respondent never attempted
to rehire Hembree. Kent was notified on the evening of November 11 that
Respondent's plans had changed. It was not until November 17, 6 days later,
that Hembree on his own initiative chanced to call at the plant in search of
employment. The fact that Hembree was put to work on November 18, together
with the hiring of two new employees, Roberts and Rucker, discussed below
in more detail, serves only to show that Respondent actually required the
services of its machine shop personnel at the time it terminated the employ
of the four men on November 9 and 10. The fact is that Respondent decided
not to hire Kent on the evening of November 11 and, insofar as this record
indicates, took no steps to procure the return of any of the four men previously
terminated. And, as appears below, there were more cogent reasons for Respond-
ent's decision on November 11 not to employ Kent.
(d) Respondent further claimed that it selected for termination the four
men in its machine shop with the least seniority. Three of the men were
hired during the summer and fall of 1948 but the employment of the fourth,
Hembree, dated back to 1945. By contrast, Respondent retained in its employ
after November 9, one Findlay, who had entered Respondent's employ as recently
as August 27, 1948. When this fact was called to Warren's attention, he claimed
that Findlay was an elderly man who would have experienced difficulty in
obtaining other employment.
This contention by Warren is not credited for several reasons. Firstly,
Findlay was admittedly an employee far less competent than the four and
who had misrepresented to Respondent his ability as a machinist; secondly,
Foreman Green, as early as the latter part of September, had asked Warren
to discharge Findlay for incompetence, as a result of which Warren instructed
Green to assign Findlay only to simple work; thirdly, of the four admittedly
competent employees released on November 9 and 10 for reasons of economy,
two, Davis and Hembree, were paid less than Findlay; and fourthly, Warren's
THE' WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 705
desire to assist Findlay because of his age was not of long duration because
Findlay was discharged the following April.
Warren's testimony herein was otherwise unimpressive. He claimed orig-
inally that Findlay received a higher rate of pay than Davis and Hembree be-
cause of blanket plant-wide increases given by Warren's father while the latter
was in charge of operations. When confronted with the fact that he, Warren II,
had taken over the plant as plant superintendent in 1946 and as production
manager in 1947, together with evidence of Findlay's entry into Respondent's
employ in August 1948, Warren abandoned his prior contention as to the reason
for Findlay's higher rate.
The fact is an employee who was less competent than all of the four, who re-
ceived higher wages than two of the four, and who had less seniority than one
of the four was retained in Respondent's employ despite the desire of his fore-
man to discharge him for incompetency. Stated otherwise, four more com-
petent employees, of whom one had more seniority and two received lower wages,
were discharged.
(e) The economic reason advanced by Respondent as the cause of the termi-
nation of the four men, together with its alleged failure to employ John Kent
because of loyalty to the four men terminated, are highlighted by the method
that Respondent utilized to introduce two new employees, Roberts and Rucker,
to its payroll. Some explanation of the background to this conduct is in order
so that the sequence of events may be fully appreciated.
Respondent, at the time herein pertinent, also owned and operated a sub-
sidiary plant, Warren Cooler Corporation, which was located across the street
from its own plant, and which, according to Warren, was then about to Liquidate.
Nevertheless, and despite its precarious financial condition, Warren Cooler Cor-
poration hired a tool and die maker, Rucker, on or about November 17, 1948,
which was approximately 7 or 8 days after the four discharges. At almost the
same time, according to the uncontroverted and credited testimony of Wages,
a lathe was transferred from Respondent's machine shop to the Warren Cooler
Corporation and Rucker was employed to make expanders on this lathe for
Respondent. Wages estimated, in view of the number of expanders which was
furnished to Respondent, that approximately 95 percent of Rucker's time was
spent on such work.' Significantly, on January 3, 1949, Rucker was transferred
from Warren Cooler Corporation to Respondent at the express request of War-
ren who was on the board of directors of the former corporation. It appears
that these same expanders were thereafter made in Respondent's plant. Rucker
then entered Respondent's employ directly at an hourly rate of $1.75 which was
in excess of that of any of the four previously terminated.
Turning back momentarily to November 19, 1.948, which was 2 days after
Rucker was placed on the payroll of Warren Cooler Corporation, Respondent
hired another tool and die maker by the name of Roberts. His hiring rate was
$2 per hour which was in excess of the wage rate of all four dischargees.
Contrary to the claim of Warren at one place in his testimony that Roberts had
sought employment with Respondent, Roberts credibly testified that he had been
solicited by Shaw who urged him to enter Respondent's employ.' Roberts was
assigned to making templates in the sheet metal department, a production de-
7 Warren's testimony that Warren Cooler Corporation performed no work for Respondent
is not credited.
8 Roberts' testimony as to the date on which he entered Respondent's employ was con-
fused. Other testimony in the record indicates that he was hired on or about November 19.
903847-51-vol. 90-46
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
partment , until on or about November 25; on that date Foreman Green an-
nounced that he had machine shop work for Roberts who was forthwith trans-
ferred to the machine shop and his position in the sheet metal department
.assigned to E. J. Whitehead. Whitehead was a machine shop employee who
.unlike Roberts did die setting in the sheet metal department ; it appears that he
,continued on the machine shop payroll although it is not clear on which pay-
roll he is presently listed. The net effect of the maneuver at this point, and the
.undersigned so finds, was to introduce a new and higher paid employee to the
machine shop on November 25 if not on November 19.
On January 3, 1949, Rucker was brought in to Respondent from Warren Cooler
,Corporation at the express request of Warren and assigned to set dies and make
.templates in the sheet metal department in lieu of Whitehead, as a result of
-which Whitehead returned to his duties in the machine shop proper. The work
=performed by Rucker in the sheet metal department was admittedly work for a
-machine shop employee. It appears Rucker was later placed on the machine shop
payroll, because at the present time Whitehead is assigned to work in the sheet
metal department. The net result on this date, January 3, was the introduction
of two new employees to Respondent's plant to do work customarily done by
machine shop personnel.
Warren, in effect, claimed that Roberts and Rucker were actually tool and die
makers; that they were more skilled than the four dischargees who were merely
machinists ; and that as a result they were more desirable employees and more
highly paid. The fact is, however, that these two highly paid men were each
.assigned to duties in the sheet metal department which had been performed and
tthereaf ter were performed by Whitehead ; by contrast the latter was described by
Warren as a fair machinist and was paid at an hourly rate far less than that of
.either, namely, $1.30. Warren also claimed that Roberts had been brought in to
make templates for Respondent's 1949 models but also conceded that this was
work that any accurate machinist could handle and that even Whitehead could
-do it. Furthermore, Respondent shortly before had sought to employ John Kent
'who was not a tool and die maker.
It is clear that the additional skills of Roberts and Rucker, if possessed by
ahem, were not required on this job and that the four competent dischargees
could have performed this work. Any further doubts on the subject are dis-
;pelled by Foreman Green's statement to Wages, shortly after Roberts entered
Respondent's employ in the sheet metal department, that the reason that Roberts
had not been placed initially in the machine shop was because Respondent was
concerned about the Union and that Respondent did not wish to hire a new
employee and assign him to work which newly discharged personnel had
.handled.'
It is found that Respondent took steps a mere matter of days after the dis-
charge of the four men on November 9 and 10 to procure the services of two
new employees to do identical and comparable work. The undersigned is also
impelled to conclude that the hiring of Rucker for work at the Warren Cooler
Corporation on products for respondent and his subsequent transfer to Respond-
ent's payroll was a stratagem to avoid the immediate addition of another em-
ployee to Respondent's payroll at this crucial period and that the initial place-
ment of Roberts in Respondent's sheet metal department was similarly motivated.
U Here, as elsewhere, Respondent objected to statements attributed to Green. As stated,
-Green not only participated in the decision of November 9 to discharge the four men but
it was he who suggested and discussed with Warren the exchange of Roberts for Whitehead.
This contention is therefore rejected.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED
6. Conclusions
707
As heretofore noted, the four men discharged on November 9 and 10 had
joined the Union in October, had been initiated therein, and were terminated
at the very moment that the Union's request for recognition was on its way to
Respondent. All were admittedly competent and had received unsolicited and
,highly commendatory letters of recommendation ; in fact, Andrews had received
a wage increase less than a month earlier. In the face of this they were dis-
charged without warning during the workweek and for a reason which has been
demonstrated to be contrary to the fact ; 10 furthermore, Respondent proceeded
by devious measures to replace at least some of those discharged.
Although in the view of the undersigned, the preponderance of the evidence at
this point supports the contentions of the General Counsel herein, any further
doubt is dispelled by the uncontroverted testimony of Wages concerning a con-
versation which took place between him and Foreman Green on the morning fol-
lowing the termination of the four men. On this occasion Wages asked Green
why the men had been discharged and Green replied that it was because they had
joined the Union or had passed union cards. And as found above, on November
11, Foreman Green stated to job applicant Kent, when asked why the men were
terminated, "We are not organized and we lost them." Further evidence of
Respondent's motivation herein is revealed by the statement of Warren to
Hembree on November 17 that he definitely would not have a Union in the plant.
In view of the foregoing, the-undersigned believes and finds that Respondent
discriminatorily discharged R. R. Andrews, T. W. Davis, and J. L. Haynes on
November 9, and E. A. Hembree on November 10, 1948, because of their union
and concerted activities and union membership, thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
Its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
It is further found that Warren's interrogation of Hembree on November 17
concerning his union membership is also violative of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act 11
The undersigned also believes that the case of John Kent is of a pattern with
those of the other four. It has been found that Kent was offered employment
on November 10, with prior clearance from Warren, that on November 11 he ac-
quainted Foreman Green with his union membership, and that he was on that
date assigned a badge and locker number. In fact, Shaw, Green, and Kent
agreed on a starting rate for Kent, and on November 11 all was in order for
Kent to start work save for a check of his "references." Later that day he
was notified that Respondent's plans had changed but that there was nothing
amiss with his references. And, as found above, Respondent forthwith proceeded
to add one other person to its payroll and another to that of its subsidiary.
Here too there is more tangible evidence of Respondent's motivation. On or
about November 12, when Kent did not report for work and Wages, as he un-
controvertedly testified, asked Foreman Green the reason therefor, Green re-
10 Not even Mechanical Engineer Shaw could claim that the men were terminated for
.economic reasons. For, shortly before Roberts was hired, Roberts, as he testified, asked
Shaw if the men had been discharged because of labor trouble. Shaw replied only in part,
stating that one of the men "had done him wrong" and It had been found necessary to
dismiss him. Obviously, such was not the case.
11 Two unidentified persons were also discharged on November 9, 1948. The record
indicates only that they were production department employees. As found hereinabove,
reductions in production personnel did not directly affect the complement of machine shop
personnel.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plied that a check had been made and it had been learned that Kent possessed
a union card. In view of the foregoing, and the fact that Respondent never took
steps to rehire any of the four terminated on November 9 and 10, save for the
employment of Hembree on November 18 after Hembree had taken the initiative
in seeking work on November 17, the undersigned rejects Respondent's contention
that Kent was denied employment because of Respondent's desire to reemploy
those discharged on November 9 and 10, 1948. The undersigned believes and
finds that Respondent denied employment to John Kent on November 11, 1948,
because of his union membership and activities, thereby discriminating with
respect to his hire. Phelps Dodge Co-'?oration vs. N. T. R. B., 313 U. S. 177.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent granted a Christmas vacation with
pay in order to discourage membership in the Union. The record indicates only
that Respondent, which theretofore had given its employees a paid vacation on
or about July 4, decided in 1948 to change the date to Christmas week and did
so in December 1948. The record indicates that a paid vacation was given as
well in 1949 but it is not entirely clear whether it was given in July or Decem-
ber, although it appears that it was the latter (late. In view of the absence of
definitive testimony on the point, it is recommended that this allegation of the
complaint be dismissed.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all tool and die makers, machinists, and die set-
ters employed by Respondent, excluding all clericals, guards, and professional
and supervisory employees as defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act. Although Respondent denied the appropriateness of this unit, it
offered no evidence in support of its position.
The named classifications embrace all employees in Respondent's machine or
tool and die shop and include a homogeneous group of closely related and skilled
craftsmen under the same supervision. This is recognized by Respondent which
has effected a physical separation of this group from the remainder of the plant
save for occasions when it is necessary for a machinist or tool and die maker
to perform tasks in a production department.12 Furthermore, the unit described
is the customary craft unit which the Board has repeatedly found to be appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The undersigned finds that the
above-described unit at all times material herein constituted and now constitutes
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act, General Electric Co., 86 NLRB 327; Firestone Tire
and Rubber Co., 85 NLRB 559; Aluminum Company of America, 83 NLRB 398,
Schultz Die Casting Co., 85 NLRB 1019; Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper
Co., 86 NLRB 126; and U. S. Time Corp., 86 NLRB 724.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that at all times since October 12, 1948, the Union has
been the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of a majority
'" It is not clear whether the die setter is at present on the payroll of the machine shop
or on that of the sheet metal department. In any event, because of his closely related)
duties, he should be included in the unit . The undersigned so recommends and finds.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 709
of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. Respondent's machine shop
payrool for the week of November 10, the period of the alleged refusal to bargain,
lists nine individuals of whom one, Wages, has been found to be a supervisory
employee. Of the remaining eight, all worked in the machine shop, although
machinist Whitehead did also set dies in the sheet metal department ; this is
machinists' work which is under the supervision of the machine shop foreman.
These eight also include Findlay who, although listed as a helper and assigned
to less difficult tasks, performed machine shop work and was in fact not a helper.
It may also be noted that although the others in the unit were regarded as ma-
chinists, their work included the making of tools and dies as well as regular
machine work, all of which falls within the scope of machine shop work.
Six of the eight men, Andrews, Davis, Haynes, Hembree, Whitehead, and
Reeves, signed union authorization cards at the union meeting held on October
12. These cards authorized the Union to represent the respective signers for the
purposes of collective bargaining. A seventh, Smelley, signed his card elsewhere
on or about October 12 and the card was shortly thereafter turned over to Union
Representative King. The lone nonsigner was Findlay, who did not attend this
meeting; however, according to the credible and uncontroverted testimony of
Y. M. Higgins, office secretary of the Union, based upon official records, Findlay
joined the Union as a transfer member on September 4, 1948. The seven cards
were offered and received in evidence at the hearing and there was credible and
uncontroverted testimony from witnesses who had either signed their respective
cards or had witnessed the signing of the cards by the indicated signers as to the
circumstances under which the signatures were affixed. Although Respondent
objected to the receipt of the cards in evidence, it made no attack upon the
authenticity thereof. All the cards appeared to be in order and the testimony
uncontrovertedly establishes that they were voluntarily signed by their respective
signers on October 12, 1948.
Of course, as related above, Respondent terminated the employment of four
of the above seven on November 9 and 10, respectively. However, as it has
been found that they were discriminatorily discharged, they retained their
status as employees under the Act and their cards are to be counted as though
they had not been discharged. It is well established that unfair labor practices
may not be utilized to change the bargaining representative previously selected
by the will of the majority. Franks Bros. Co. v. N. L. B. B., 321 U. S. 702;
N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Assoc., 310 U. S. 318; N. L. R. B. v. Burke Machine
Tool Co., 133 F. 2d 618 (C. A. 6) ; N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F. 2d
753 (C. A. 7) ; and A. .1. Showalter Co., 64 NLRB 573. Furthermore, on November
20, the (late that Grand Lodge Representative Chipman met with Weekes, these
men also were employees within the unit which was otherwise unchanged except
for the addition of Roberts on November 19."
The undersigned finds that on October 12, 1948, and at all times thereafter,
the Union was and now is the duly designated representative of a majority of
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and by virtue of Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the Union at all such times was and now is the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, or other conditions of
employment.
"Even if the discharges were not found to be discriminatory, three of the four remaining
employees had designated the Union as their bargaining representative and the fourth,
Findlay, was a transfer member. The addition of a fifth, Roberts, on November 1.9, did
not effect the majority representation by the Union.
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL" LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3.. The refusal to bargain
The initial request for recognition was sent on November 8, 1948, by Business'
Representative King and received by Respondent on November 10. It stated that
a majority of Respondent ' s "Tool & Die Makers, Machinists and Maintenance-
Employees" [emphasis added] had designated the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative and asked for an early conference to discuss an.
agreement . The letter was turned over to Respondent ' s counsel , John Wesley
Weekes, who on November 13 replied to King and stated that he represented
Respondent . Weekes expressed the doubt that a majority of the "tool and die.
makers, machinists and maintenance employees " [emphasis added] had desig-
nated the Union as their bargaining representative and declined to enter a
collective bargaining conference . King immediately sent the letter to Grand
Lodge Representative Paul Chipman who thereafter personally handled the,
negotiations of the Union with Respondent.
Chipman proceeded to arrange a conference with Weekes for November 20,
1948, which was held as scheduled ." Chipman pointed out to Weekes that a
typographical error had appeared in King's letter of November S; that the
term "Maintenance Employees " should have read "Maintenance Machinist Em-
ployees"; and that the Union was not interested in representing any employees.
other than machinists , tool and die makers , maintenance machinists , and die.
setters. Weekes asked Chipman why the Union was restricting itself to this.
small group inasmuch as Respondent employed a substantial number of em-
ployees in other categories . Chipman replied that the Union was interested
only in employees in these categories as they comprised the usual machinist
craft unit within the Union's jurisdiction in a manufacturing plant. He specifi-
cally requested Weekes to recognize the Union as collective bargaining represen-
tative of Respondent 's machinists , tool and die makers, maintenance machinists,
and die setters , although it appears from the record that Respondent did not and
does not distinguish between machinists and maintenance machinists since its
machinists do both maintenance and general work.
Chipman offered to prove that the Union was the majority representative of
the employees in the stated unit through a check of union authorization cards
against Respondent 's payroll by any disinterested third party ; this Weekes.
refused. Chipman then proposed that the question concerning representation,
be settled through a consent election and this too was refused. Weekes stated
that it was his custom to advise clients to submit matters to the Board's pro--
cedures, referring apparently to a Board -directed election. Chipman asked that
Weekes notify him should he reconsider his position and the meeting ended.
That same day, November 20, Chipman wrote to Weekes and confirmed the
conference held that morning. He renewed his request for a consent election.
and stated that it was his intent to file a petition for certification of representa-
tives. This petition was filed on November 23 and, thereafter , on January 5,
1949, Weekes agreed to the holding of a consent election . However, on January-
7 or 8, Chipman learned of the hiring by Respondent of Roberts and Warren,
and on January 8, 1949, he withdrew from the consent election agreement and
filed the charge upon which the instant complaint is bottomed.
l' Findings as to this conference are based upon the credited and uncontroverted testi-
mony of Chipman who impressed the undersigned as an honest witness.
THE WARREN COMPANI, INCORPORATED
Conclusions
7111
As stated, the Union in its initial request for recognition on November 8, 1948,
inadvertently included the term of maintenance employees in its description of-
the unit. Although not advanced as a defense, Respondent in its letter of No-
vember 13 did deny the majority representation by the Union of a majority in.
the unit described in the November 8 letter, and it further appears that at the-
time Respondent had six or seven employees in its maintenance department.
Although on the one hand, the request for recognition sent on November 8 did.
describe a unit broader than that sought by the Union and one which appears.
to have transgressed the limits of a true craft unit it also appears that Respond-
ent had reasonable cause to believe that the Union's request was intended to-
include only those employees within the machine shop or doing analogous work..
This is demonstrated by Warren's interrogation of two machine shop men,.
Reeves and Hembree, on November 9, concerning union activities in the plant and
the reply of Hembree that the men in the machine shop had signed cards. How-
ever, inasmuch as there was an amended request for recognition on November-
20, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to decide whether there was a refusal to-
bargain on November 13.
On November 20, the Union submitted a request for recognition as bargaining-
representative of the employees in the unit hereinabove found to be appropriate.
Chipman offered to prove the union majority by a check of union authorization-
cards against Respondent's payroll to be conducted by any disinterested third.
party. This was rejected as was his subsequent request for a consent election.
agreement and Weekes stated that the Union should resort to the processes of the-
Board. The issue thus posed is whether Respondent acted in good or bad faith.
in refusing to accede to a card check as a method for checking the Union's claim-
of majority and in refusing to recognize the Union on November 20, 1948. The
crucial factor is the motive of Respondent at the time of this refusal to recognize
the Union.
It is true that an Employer may in good faith. insist upon a Board election as
proof of a union majority, but, on the other hand, such insistence must be bot-
tomed upon a bona fide doubt as to the union majority and not be motivated by
a rejection of the collective bargaining principle. In the instant case, it has
been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged four employees on
November 9 and 10 and discriminatorily refused to hire a fifth on November-
11, 1948. It then, at the very moment of its refusal to recognize the Union,.
engaged in subterfuges in order to introduce new employees to the machine
shop and plant to take the places of the admittedly competent employees who
had been recently discharged for alleged economic reasons. Furthermore, as
late as November 1.8 Warren stated to Hembree that he definitely would not have
a union at the plant and that he did not want a "closed shop and a contract
with the Union." It must further be borne in mind that all this took place after
Warren was informed on November 9 that the employees in the machine shop,
had signed cards in the Union.
In view of the above, the undersigned is impelled to conclude that Respond-
ent, in declining to recognize the Union on November 20, 1948, was not motivated:
by a bona fide doubt concerning the union majority. It is concluded rather
that Respondent, which was opposed to organization of is employees by the
Union and took vigorous steps to counteract these organizational activities, did
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demonstrate a fixed opposition to the rights guaranteed its employees by the
Act, and that its refusal on November 20, 1948, to recognize the Union and
insistence upon a Board-directed election as a basis for determining the question
of majority representation were motivated by a rejection of the principles of
collective bargaining.
It is found therefore that on November 20, 1948, and all times thereafter,
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment and that Respondent has
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Lebanon Steel Foundry Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 130 F. 2d 404 (C. A. D. C.) cert. den., 317 U. S. 659; N. L. R'. B. v.
Consolidated Machine Tool Corp., 163 F. 2d 376 (C. A. 2) cert. den., 322 U. S. 824;
N. L. R. B. v. Clarksburg Publishing Co. 120 F. 2d 976 (C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Piqua Munising Wood Products Co., 109 F. 2d 552 (C. A. 0) ; Joy Silk Hills,
85 NLRB 1263; Red Rock Co., 84 NI, B 521; and fart Craft Hosiery Co., 78
NLRB 333.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
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 relationship 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent has discriminated with respect to the
hire and tenure of employment of R. R. Andrews, L. W. Davis, J. L. Haynes, and
E. A. Hembree, by discharging them and denying them reinstatement because
of their concerted activities and union activities and membership. The under-
signed will therefore recommend that Respondent offer to each of them imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. Having further
found that Respondent has discriminated with respect to the hire of John C.
Kent, it will be recommended that Respondent offer him employment without
prejudice to seniority or other rights he would otherwise have enjoyed from
November 11, 1948, the date employment was discriminately denied.
It is further recommended that Respondent make whole those named above
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against them to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, or, in the case of Kent, of employment.
It is not entirely clear on this record precisely how many employees are in
the machine shop at the present time. Although there is testimony by Warren
that but for the short reinstatement of Hembree late in November, Roberts and
Rucker were the only machine shop employees hired since November 9, there is
the possibility, in the view of the undersigned, that other employees who fall
within the scope of the above-delineated appropriate unit and perform analogous
work are detailed elsewhere in the plant; in so stating, the undersigned has in
THE WARREN COMPANI, INCORPORATED 713
mind that machine shop employees have been assigned to the sheet metal de-
partment, as set forth heretofore in this Report. However, it is further recom-
mended that the Board reserve the right to modify the back-pay and reinstate-
ment provisions, set forth above, if it appears at the compliance stage that there
are less former or substantially equivalent positions available than there are
employees to be reinstated.
In addition, having found that Respondent has refused to bargain collec-
tively with he Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, the undersigned will recommend that Respondent,
on request, bargain collectively with the Union.
Inasmuch as the discharge of employees for reasons of union affiliation or
concerted activity has been regarded by the courts as one of the most effective
methods of defeating the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization,
the undersigned is of the belief that there is danger that the commission of unfair
labor practices generally is to be anticipated from Respondent's unlawful con-
duct in the past. N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manacfacturing Co., 120 F. 2d 532
(C. A. 4), and N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 116 F. 2d
350 (C. A. 7). It will therefore be recommended that Respondent be required
to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
May Department Stores Co. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376; N. L. R. B. v. Express
Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. District Lodge No. 46, International Association of Machinists, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
R. R. Andrews, T. W. Davis, J. L. Haynes, and E. A. Hembree, and with regard
to the hire of John C. Kent, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organi-
zation, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. All tool and die makers, machinists, and die setters employed by Respondent,
excluding all clericals, guards, and professional and supervisory employees as
defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. District Lodge No. 46, International Association of Machinists was on Octo-
ber 12, 1948, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on November 20, 1948, and at all times thereafter, to recognize
and bargain collectively with District Lodge No. 46, International Association
of Machinists as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 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.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
.714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
;undersigned recommends that Respondent, The Warren Company, Incorporated,
.Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in District Lodge No. 46, International Associa-
'ttion of Machinists, or any other labor organization of its employees by discrimi-
nating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any terms or condi-
tions of employment of its employees ;
(b) Discouraging membership in District Lodge No. 46, International Associa-
;tion of Machinists, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard
,to hire or any terms or conditions of employment ;
(c) Interrogating or questioning its employees concerning their union or
concerted activities ;
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with District Lodge No. 46, International
Association of Machinists as the exclusive representative of all its tool and die
.makers, machinists, and die setters, excluding all clericals, guards, and pro-
:.fessional and supervisory employees as defined by the Act ;
(e) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist District Lodge No. 46, International Association of Machinists, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or 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 employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
-effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees whose names appear in Appendix A attached hereto
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
.positions, and in the case of John C. Kent to the position denied him or a sub-
-'stantially equivalent position, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner
-set forth in the section hereinabove entitled "The remedy" ;
(b) Upon ' request, bargain collectively with District Lodge No. 46, Inter-
national Association of Machinists as the exclusive representative of all its too]
and die makers, machinists, and die setters, excluding all clericals, guards, and
professional and supervisory employees as defined by the Act, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, or other conditions of employment, and if an under-
standing is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(c) Post immediately at its office and plant at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custo-
marily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced; or covered by any other materials ;
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 715
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within twenty
'(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the date
,of receipt of this Intermediate Report, Respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid
action.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that Respondent granted a Christmas vacation with pay in order to discourage
membership in the Union.
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 excep-
and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upontions
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 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
rand Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
:and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 14th day of February 1950.
MARTIN S. BENNETT,
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, as amended, Ave hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate or question our employees concerning their union
or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist DISTRICT LODGE No. 46, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa
-tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section S (a) (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without:
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them.
R. R. Andrews J. L. Haynes
T. W. Davis E. A. Hembree
WE WILL OFFER to the employee named below immediate and full employ-
ment in the position denied him or in a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights he would have enjoyed
absent the discrimination against him.
John C. Kent
WE WILL BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY upon request with DISTRICT LODGE No. 46,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All tool and die makers, machinists, and die setters, excluding all clericals,
guards, and professional and supervisory employees.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
Union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activitiy on behalf of any such labor
organization.
THE WARREN COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------- B'-----------------------------------------
(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.