U.S. Tool & Cutter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 20 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten to. close down or not to deal with a union if our fac-
tory-becomes unionized.
WE WILL NOT question applicants for employment on whether they belong to
a union, or on whether they intend to join or are in sympathy with a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Local 107 or Local •10, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
All employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of any labor organization.
D'ARMIGENE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No.
751-5500, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
U.S. Tool & Cutter Co. and Mechanics Educational Society of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-4550. July 27, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1964, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, granting the motion of
the General Counsel to cancel the hearing scheduled herein and for
judgment on the pleadings,' finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
'At one point in his Decision , the Trial Examiner inadvertently referred to this motion
as the Respondent' s motion.
148 NLRB No. 4.
U.S. TOOL` & CUTTER' CO. 21
The Board has considered the-Trial Examiner's Decision, the ex-
ceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In the present case , the charge ( filed by the Union on January 29, 1964 , and served
-upon the Respondent on January 31, 1964 ) and the complaint ( issued by the Acting
Regional Director on February 4, 1964 , and served upon the Respondent on the same
day) allege that, on and since January 23, 1964 , the Respondent has committed un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (a)( I) and
(5) and 2(6 ) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151,
et seq. ), by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union which had been certified
by the Board 's Acting Regional Dirctor as exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the Respondent 's employees in an appropriate unit , in accordance with the
vote of a majority of these employees in an election by secret ballot conducted by
the said Acting Regional Director on January 7, 1964, under an agreement for con-
sent election previously executed by the Respondent and the Union.
Acting through counsel , the Respondent filed an answer to charge against employer
on February 6, 1964, and , in amplification of its defense, also an answer to complaint
on February 14, 1964. In and by the consistent - and complementary allegations of
said answers , the Respondent has purported to set forth its position and defense in
the present case, and the two submissions must therefore be treated as its answer to
the complaint . Although the Respondent has thereby relied upon certain affirma-
tively pleaded matters for its defense and has on these bases denied its commission
of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint , it has either admitted or failed
to deny the substance of the allegations of the complaint that : ( 1) the production
and maintenance unit described in the complaint has at all material times constituted
a unit of the Respondent 's employees appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act; (2) a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit voted for the Union as their collective -bargaining representative
in an election conducted by secret ballot by the Acting Regional Director on Janu-
ary 7, 1964; ( 3) on January 15, 1964, the Acting Regional Director certified the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit; (4) on January 16, 1964, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit ; and (5 ) on and since January 23, 1964, the Respond-
ent has refused "to honor the certification of and to meet and bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive collective -bargaining representative of the employees
in the [appropriate ] unit "
As the principal defense affirmatively asserted by it in its answer , the Respondent
alleged in substance that a majority of the employees voted against the Union in a
2 0n May 6, 1964 , after the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision , the General
Counsel moved that the Board reopen the record herein and that the Respondent be
ordered to show cause why the contract between the Respondent and the Union , entered
into on April 20, 1964, and effective for 2 years , should not be made part of the record
In the alternative , the General Counsel requested that the Board remand the case to the
Trial Examiner for the purpose of reopening the hearing to accept evidence relating to
the above contract . The General Counsel's motion is hereby denied as it does not present
anything relevant to the issues involved in this proceeding.
22 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
first election conducted by the Acting Regional Director on September 11, 1963, and
that "the arbitrary and capricious action of the Acting Regional Director, in [setting
aside this election and] ordering this second election on January 7, 1964, renders the
certification null and void ...." In addition, the Respondent's answer asserted the
following as defenses to the complaint: (a) the employees "requested the Union not
to file any objections to the first" election; (b) "certain facts relied upon by the Act-
ing Regional Director in his order for the second election were not valid"; (c) the
"long delay" between the first and second elections "had an adverse effect upon [the
Respondent's] relationship with his employees, and prevented the [Respondent] from
granting a mutually desired general wage increase . . . and was a direct cause of the
change in the results of the [second] election"; and (d) the Acting Regional Director
acted improperly in issuing the present complaint only 4 days after receiving the
Union's charge, without previous investigation of the charge, and without discussing
the possibility of settlement with the Respondent.
On March 4, 1964, the General Counsel filed and served upon the Respondent a
motion to strike portions of Respondent's answer to complaint and motion for
judgment on the pleadings. In said motion, the General Counsel prayed that: (1) the
material allegations of the complaint which "have, in effect, been admitted in the Re-
spondent's Answer . be deemed to be admitted to be true"; (2) for reasons and
authority set forth in the motion, the defenses affirmatively pleaded in the Respond-
ent's answer be struck as insufficient and lacking in merit; (3) "Respondent be found
by the Trial Examiner to have violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act without
the taking of evidence in support of the allegations of the Complaint"; and (4) "this
motion be ruled upon immediately so that, in the event the motion is granted, the
necessity for hearing will be eliminated and the hearing cancelled."
On March 4, 1964, the Acting Regional Director referred the General Counsel's
motion to the Trial Examiner pursuant to Section 102.25 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, and on March 9, 1964, the Respondent having on that day requested
leave to file its opposition to said motion on or about March 11, 1964, the Chief
Trial Examiner designated me, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow, to rule
thereon.
On March 10, 1964, I issued and caused to be served upon the Respondent and
the other parties, a telegraphic order granting leave to the Respondent to file its
opposition to the General Counsel's motion on or before March 17, 1964, post
poning the scheduled hearing from March 12 to April 2, 1964, pending my disposi-
tion of the motion, and directing that the Respondent in its opposition to the motion
should "(1) state with particularity the facts upon which it relies and asserts in its
answer that the Acting Regional Director acted arbitrarily and capriciously in order-
ing a second election in the representation proceeding on January 7, 1964, (2) sup-
port with reason or citation of authority the legal sufficiency of the defenses it asserts
in its answer and (3) state its reasons, if any it has, for believing that the pleadings
present any issue of fact or law requiring a trial or hearing herein."
On March 17, 1964, the Respondent filed with me its opposition to the General
Counsel's motion. The full text of the Respondent's opposition was the following:
1. The Employer signed the Stipulation for a Consent Election believing that
the Acting Regional Director would be fair and impartial in making his de-
terminations. The Acting Regional Director acted arbitrarily and capriciously
in ordering the second election on January 7, 1964, for the reason that he set
aside the first election based upon statement of facts, in his report on objections,
that are false and not substantiated in the record.
The conclusions to justify ordering the second election were based upon con-
clusions of facts that are not substantiated in the report, and were based upon
false conclusions of facts. To cite one example: the report stated that a con-
tract between the employees and the company expired in 1963. As a matter of
fact, this agreement did not expire in 1963.
There are numerous other untrue and unsubstantiated facts used as a basis for
the conclusions reached by the Acting Regional Director.
To restrict the Employer to submission of these matters on briefs, is unfair
and it does not permit us to correct these errors of fact in the matter, and it
places an onerous burden on the employer, and deprives the employer of due
process, or any right to cross-examination.
The employer, therefore, respectfully requests that this matter be set for hear-
ing before the Trial Examiner, on April 2, the date set for the hearing or on an
earlier date, if possible, so that we may properly present our Opposition to the
Motion of the Acting Regional Director.
U.S. TOOL & CUTTER CO. 23
It would appear that the Acting Regional Director would welcome the hear-
ing to clarify the record , if he were certain of the correctness of the facts he
relies upon, then he should welcome an opportunity to clear the record. The
apparent reluctance to do so in a hearing before the Trial Examiner is an indi-
cation that the facts relied upon cannot be substantiated.
On March 18 , 1964 , after consideration of the pleadings , the General Counsel's
motion and the Respondent 's opposition thereto, I issued and caused to be served
upon the Respondent and the other parties , the following telegraphic order:
Re: U.S. Tool & Cutter Co.-Case No. 7-CA-4550 . The General Counsel
having filed and served upon the Respondent a motion to strike portions of the
Respondent's answer and for judgment on the pleadings , and the Respondent
having filed and served its opposition pursuant to leave granted in my telegraphic
order of March 10, 1964, and it appearing that the General Counsel 's motion
has merit and that the pleadings present no issue of fact or law requiring a trial
or hearing herein, the motion of the General Counsel is hereby granted, the
hearing set for April 2, 1964, is cancelled , and the notice of hearing is vacated
and set aside . The Trial Examiner 's Decision and Recommended Order, in-
cluding his reasons for granting the General Counsel 's motion and his findings
of fact and conclusions of law , are being prepared and will be filed and served
upon the parties in due course.
Rulings on the General Counsel 's Motion
The present situation is one in which the Respondent in its answer has admitted or
failed to deny all the essential allegations of the complaint , but, by way of affirmative
defense, has attacked the conduct of the Acting Regional Director both in the repre-
sentation proceeding and in the issuance of the complaint in the present unfair labor
practice proceeding . So far as the representation case is concerned , it appears (as
the Respondent admits in its answer and its opposition to the General Counsel's
motion ) that the Acting Regional Director conducted the representation proceeding
under an agreement for consent election , investigated and found merit in the Union's
objections to the first election , directed a second election 4 months after the first, and
then, in accordance with the results of the second election , certified the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of the Respondent's em-
ployees. With respect to the present proceeding, it appears merely that the Acting
Regional Director , having received the Union 's charge of Respondent 's refusal to
bargain on January 29, 1964, issued the present complaint on February 4, 1964, or
only 4 or 5 days later.
Pursuant to Section 102.20 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , I have granted
the portion of the General Counsel 's motion that I take the allegations of the com-
plaint as having been admitted by the Respondent and as therefore being true and
the proper basis for findings without the necessity of holding a hearing and taking
evidence with respect thereto . For the following reasons, I have also struck the re-
maining affirmative defenses pleaded by the Respondent as being insufficient to raise
a defense and, since no triable issues have been presented by the pleadings, I have
canceled the hearing and have granted the General Counsel's motion for a judgment
on the pleadings.
As I have noted, the Respondent affirmatively asserted in its answer as its primary
and general defense merely its unexplained conclusion "that the arbitrary and capri-
cious action of the Acting Regional Director in ordering [the] second election of
January 7 , 1964, renders the certification [ of the Union as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative ] null and void ." Furthermore , despite the specific direction in my tele-
graphic order of March 10, 1964, the Respondent in its opposition to the General
Counsel 's motion has failed to "state with particularity the facts upon which it relies
on" in asserting this defense . Accordingly , I have struck this affirmative defense
from the Respondent 's answer as pleading a mere conclusion without indication of its
basis and therefore as being insufficient to raise or frame an intelligible issue for trial
in the present case.
The remaining affirmatively pleaded defenses alleged in substance , as I have noted:
(a) a request made by employees to the Union that no objections to the first election
be filed ; (b) error by the Acting Regional Director in ordering the second election;
(c) a 4-month delay in holding the second election , thereby prejudicing the Respond-
ent and influencing a change in the election result ; and (d ) the Acting Regional
Director 's issuance of the complaint in the present case without investigation or
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affording the Respondent an opportunity of settlement. These defenses have also
been struck from the Respondent's answer as legally insufficient, both in accordance
with the argument and authorities cited by the General Counsel in his motion and in
view of the Respondent's failure to indicate and support their legal sufficiency (with
reason or citation of authority) as directed by me in my telegraphic order of March 10,
1964. In striking these defenses, I hold that, the factual allegations in the Respond-
ent's answer and in its opposition to the General Counsel's motion would neither
justify the Respondent's conclusion that the Acting Regional Director acted arbi-
trarily, capriciously, or improperly in the representation proceedings or in the instant
complaint proceeding, nor would they otherwise present a defense to the merits of the
complaint. With respect to the allegations relating to the representation case, it
would appear even from the Respondent's answer, that the Acting Regional Director
did no more than act upon the Union's objections to the first election strictly in
accordance with the authority conferred by the agreement for consent election and
within the time reasonably required by the situation which confronted him.' Any
possible change in the attitude of the employees in the period between the two elec-
tions resulting in a vote favorable to the Union in the second election was therefore
incidental to the election procedures prescribed by the Act and adopted to this par-
ticular situation by the parties, including the Respondent, in their agreement for con-
sent election, and cannot therefore be attributed to the Acting Regional Director.
Finally, with respect to the Acting Regional Director's issuance of the unfair labor
practice complaint so shortly after the Union's filing of its charge, his asserted failure
to investigate the charge and to afford the Respondent an opportunity for settlement
does not present a defense to the merits. For, having just issued his certification of
the Union, the Acting Regional Director was certainly familiar with the situation
and, when he was informed by the Union in its charge of the Respondent's refusal
to bargain, no further investigation was reasonably required of him .2 Nor was the
Respondent prejudiced by lack of an opportunity to settle the case before the com-
plaint issued, since it could itself have initiated such an attempt, not only when the
Union's charge had been served upon it, but also after the issuance of the complaint .3
For the foregoing reasons, I have granted the Respondent's motion (1) to take the
allegations of the complaint as having been admitted by the Respondent; (2) to strike
the remaining affirmatively pleaded allegations from the Respondent's answer; (3) to
cancel the hearing originally scheduled herein; and (4) to make my following find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations upon, and in accordance with,
the admitted allegations of the complaint.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. The original charge in this proceeding was filed on January 29, 1964, and served
by registered mail upon Respondent on or about January 30, 1964.
2. Respondent, U.S. Tool & Cutter Co, is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State
of Michigan.
3. At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its only office and place
of business at 28975 Orchard Lake Road in the village of Franklin and the State of
Michigan, and is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in-the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of cutting tools and related products.
4. During the-fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, which period is representative of
its operations during all times material herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Franklin, Michi-
gan, plant, products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess
of $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to points located outside of the
State of Michigan. During said fiscal period, Respondent performed approximately
$35,000 worth of national defense work. '
5. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. ,
6. Mechanics Educational Society of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the
Union), is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
N L R.B v. Calumet Steel Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 121 F 2d 300 (C A. 7) ;
Efco, Manufacturing, Inc., 100 NLRB 423-424.
? Mildren F. Kellow, d /b/a Kellow-Brown Printing Company, 105 NLRB 28, 32.
3lnternational Typographical Union and the Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12
( Graphic Arts League, et al.), 87 NLRB 1215, 1223-1225.
U.S. TOOL & CUTTER CO. 25
7. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Franklin,
Michigan, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, but excluding all other
plant clerical employees, all office clerical employees professional employees, techni-
cal employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
8. On or about January 7, 1964, pursuant to an agreement for consent election
executed by the Union and Respondent and approved by the Regional Director of
the Seventh Region of the Board on August 19, 1963, a majority of employees of
Respondent in the unit described above in paragraph 7, by a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the Seventh
Region of the Board, designated and selected the Union as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining with Respondent, and on or about January 15,
1964, said Acting Regional Director certified the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in said unit.
9. At all times since January 15, 1964, and continuing to date, the Union has been
the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the
unit described above in paragraph 7, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has
been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
10. Commencing on or about January 16, 1964, and continuing to date, and more
particularly, by letter dated January 16, 1964, from National Representative Jerry
Raymond, the Union requested, and is requesting, that Respondent bargain collec-
tively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment of all the employees of Respondent in the unit described
above in paragraph 7.
11. Commencing on or about January 23, 1964, and at all times thereafter, and
more particularly by letter dated January 23, 1964, Respondent, through its attorney
and agent, Martin J. Ewald, did refuse, and continues to refuse, to honor the cer-
tification of and to meet and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described above in
paragraph 7.
12. By the conduct described above in paragraph 11, Respondent did refuse, and
is refusing, to bargain collectively with the representative of its employees, and thereby
did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
13. By the conduct described above in paragraph 11, Respondent did interfere
with, restrain, and coerce, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
14. The conduct of Respondent described in paragraph 11, above, occurring in
connection with operations of Respondent described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
15. The conduct of Respondent described above constitutes unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I will recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent , U.S. Tool &
Cutter Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, with Mechanics Edu-
cational Society of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Franklin,
Michigan, plant, including shipping and receiving employees , but excluding all other
plant clerical employees, all office clerical employees , professional employees , techni-
cal employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with the above- named Union as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the foregoing appropriate unit, and embody in
a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its plant in Franklin , Michigan , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing , within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith .5
'If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice . If the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a' United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and
Order."
5If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to
read : "Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Mechanics Educational So-
ciety of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its
Franklin , Michigan, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, but
excluding all other plant clerical employees , all office clerical employees,
professional employees , technical employees , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
U.S. TOOL & CUTTER CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- BY-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No. 963-9330,
if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.