American Manufacturing Concern

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CONCERN and LOCAL
No. 6, ORGANIZED FURNITURE WORKERS
Case No. C-103.-Decided June 7, 1938
School and Office Supplies, Furniture, Toy, and Wooden Specialties Manu-
facturing Industry-Interference, Restraint and Coercion: antiunion state-
iments; engendering fear of loss of employment for union activity; expressed
opposition to labor organization ; persuading employees to resign from union ;
employer's action in discharging employees taking part in walk-out, treated
only as-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and interference with forma-
tion and administration-Discrimination: employer's statement that employees
'taking part in walk-out were discharged, held to have no actual effect upon
tenure of employment; charges of, dismissed-Employee Status: following
walk-out-Strike: held to exist when employees cease work in order to secure
compliance with a demand for some condition of employment, the refusal
of which by the employer has given rise to a labor dispute--Reinstatement
Ordered: strikers to be placed upon list of employees temporarily laid off
and to be offered employment in order of seniority when employment becomes
.available.
Mr. Edward B. Flaherty, for the Board.
Mr. Clive L. Wright, of Jamestown, N. Y., for the respondent.
Mr. Daniel B. Shorial, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Sumner Marcus, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Local No. 6,
'Organized Furniture Workers, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Henry
.J. Winters, Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New
York), on December 7, 1937, issued and served a complaint and
notice of hearing upon American Manufacturing Concern, herein
.called the respondent, and upon the Union. The complaint alleged
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
753
754 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8, (1), (2), and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The com-
plaint alleged in' substance that the respondent, by failing to rein-
state and reemploy a group of 32 named individuals who walked
out of the respondent's factory in concerted activity, discriminated
and is discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure; that the
respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of a labor organization, described as The Independent
Company Union, and contributed support to it; and that thus and
in various other ways, the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed a written answer, dated December 11, 1937,
in which it admitted the allegations of the complaint with respect
to the respondent's business and denied each of the other allega-
tions.
Pursuant to the notice of hearing, a hearing was held in James-
town, New York, on December 17, 20, 21 and 22, 1937, before Louis
L. Jaffe, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the
hearing the Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented
by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties.
At the close of the Board's case and again at the close of the hear-
ing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds
that the allegations of the complaint were not sustained by the
evidence, and on the ground that 29 of the 32 persons named in the
complaint were legally discharged. These motions were denied.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The respondent also moved in
substance to dismiss the allegations in the complaint with respect
to certain persons named in the complaint who, it appeared at the
hearing, did not desire reinstatement. The Trial Examiner took
this motion under consideration and stated in the Intermediate Re-
port that he was in effect granting the motion by not recommending
any relief in respect to these persons. This motion will be granted
in so far as it relates to the allegations that such persons were re-
fused reinstatement.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed these rulings and rulings made with respect to motions of
the' parties and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 13, 1938, a stipulation regarding the circumstances
of the alleged discharges and the subsequent employment records
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 755
of 15 persons named in the complaint was entered into between
the Board, the respondent, and the Union and, by agreement of the
parties, was made part of the record.
On January 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, which was duly served upon the parties. He found that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3), and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and that the respondent place upon a roll of persons
currently employed by the respondent but at the moment laid off,
27 persons with respect to whom the complaint had alleged that the
respondent had committed an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and that the respondent employ
them when employment became available.
Thereafter, both the respondent and the Union filed exceptions
to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Interme-
diate Report. Pursuant to notice to both the respondent and the
Union a hearing was held, at the request of the respondent, before
the Board on March 17, 1938, in Washington, D. C., for the pur-
poses of oral argument upon the respondent 's and the Union 's excep-
tions. Briefs were filed by the respondent and the Union in support
of their respective exceptions. The Board has considered these ex-
ceptions and the arguments in their support and save as they are
consistent with the findings and conclusions below, it finds them to
be without merit.
Upon the whole record the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New York corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Falconer, New York. It manufac-
tures beehives , school and office supplies, toys , furniture , and wooden
specialties. It sells annually approximately $300,000 worth of mer-
chandise, of which approximately 75 per cent is shipped to States
other than New York as well as to Great Britain, the West Indies,
South Africa, Australia, and Asia. Approximately 25 per cent of
the raw, materials used by the respondent in the manufacture of its
products are bought in and shipped from States other than New
York.
756 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local No. 6, Organized Furniture Workers, affiliated with the In-
dustrial Labor Council of Jamestown, New York, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership the respondent's production em-
ployees.
The organization described in the complaint as The Independent
Company Union is an unaffiliated labor organization composed of
production employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events leading to the strike of July 14, 1937
The Union was organized in March 1937. Almost immediately it-
acquired the membership of approximately 100 per cent of the
respondent's production employees. At various times during the
course of the progress of its organization several of the respondent's-
foremen displayed a hostile attitude towards the Union. Glenn
Bloss, a member of the Union, testified that Earl Chapman, a fore-
man, talked with him "over and over" and said that "the Union•
never did amount to anything and according to his mind a union
was only radicalism and all in it was a lot of trouble." Bloss also
testified that Fritz Balder, a foreman, often "razzed" the Union and
had stated that "Well, Unions and you fellows ought to be hung."
Balder's statements were made as late as the end of June 1937.
Albert Roman, a member of the Union, testified that Fritz Balder
had warned him to keep his mouth shut with respect to the Union
and had intimated that discharge might easily follow from continua-
tion of his union activities. Emma Carlson, a member of the Union,
testified that Balder told her and Beatrice Piazza not to join the
Union.
There was also testimony by Harold Nyberg to the effect that
Leslie Martin, the respondent's general manager, who was in full
charge of the respondent's plant, had expressed antiunion senti-
ments to certain of the respondent's employees. Martin denied having
made such statements. The statements attributed to Foremen Balder
and Chapman were not denied, however. In view of the foregoing
testimony, Nye find that the respondent attempted to place obstacles in
the way of its employees' self-organization from the time 'the Union
came into being, and by doing so, has interferred with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
In April, the Union effected an agreement with the respondent
regarding wages and hours. The agreement provided for a 45-hour
week. It was further agreed at this time that the agreement should
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 757
last until July 10 and that at that time the question of the 40-hour
week which the Union was demanding would be discussed further.
On June 29 the Organized Furniture Workers sent to each of the
17 furniture plants, in which locals affiliated with the Organized
Furniture Workers existed, a demand for a 40-hour week and time
and a half for overtime. On June 30 a meeting of the Manufac-
turer's Association of Jamestown, of which the respondent and other
furniture manufacturers were members, was held for the purpose of
discussing the demands presented by the Organized Furniture Work-
ers. At this meeting, at which Martin was present, it was decided'
that each furniture company should continue the schedule of hours
under which it was then operating. Martin denies that this decision
by the Manufacturer's Association committed him to any definite
policy in future dealings with the Union.
On July 1, 10, 12, and 13, conferences were held between the execu-
tive committee of the Union and Martin. There is some dispute as,
to the meeting at which the demand for the 40-hour week was first
presented by the Union. It is clear, however, from Martin's testi-
mony that the question of the 40-hour week was discussed at "about
three meetings" and that Martin consistently refused to grant the
Union's demands.
On the evening of July 13 the Union held a meeting. Dahlin, the
president of the Union, and many others testified that there was dis-
cussion by the assembled group concerning what action the Union
should take in view of Martin's continued refusal to grant the 40=
hour week and that a motion was passed that the Union members
should walk out of the respondent's plant at 3: 30 p. in. on the fol-
lowing day if Martin persisted in his attitude.
The respondent contends that no official vote to walk out was ever
taken by the Union and has adduced much testimony to prove that
the only motion upon which the Union acted was in regard to the
presentation of a demand for an 8-hour day on the following day.
But even the witnesses offered by the respondent agreed that it had
at least been "understood" by a group of Union members that the
walk-out would take place if the respondent did not accede to the
Union's demands. Since concerted action was contemplated by a
group of union members for the purpose of securing shorter hours,
it is immaterial to the issues in this case whether or not the Union's
action was in accordance with the rules of parliamentary procedure
and we consequently do not make any finding in this respect.
On the morning of July 14, the executive committee of the Union
arranged a meeting with Martin for 11 a. in. Prior to this meeting,
Martin had been informed by Warren Anderson, an employee of the
respondent, who was the son of Charles Anderson, a foreman, of what
758
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had happened at the Union meeting of the previous evening. Martin
again refused to accede to the Union 's demand for a 40-hour week
and this time gave as an excuse that he must first speak to Davis, the
president of the respondent , who was not in Falconer and who was not
expected to return there for several days . This was the first time in
the history of the relationship between the respondent and the Union
that it had ever been intimated that Martin was not in sole control of
the respondent 's labor policies . An agreement between the Union
and the respondent had been effected in April without Davis ' inter-
vention. Martin , moreover, had had notice of the Union's demand
for a 40-hour week for several months and he could have consulted
Davis during this period had lie desired and intended to do so. The
Union's representatives concluded that Martin was in effect refusing
definitely to accede to their demand . It was therefore decided by the
executive committee of the Union to carry out the walk-out at 3: 30.
B. The strike
On the afternoon of July 14, Martin, having heard that there would
be a walk-out, called Dahlin to his office and attempted to dissuade
him from going through with it. Dahlin stated that the walk-out
would definitely take place unless the demand for a 40-hour week was
granted. Martin thereupon caused to be circulated among the em-
ployees notices to the effect that working hours of the respondent's
plant were from 7 a. m. to 12 noon and from 12: 30 p. m. to 4: 30 p. m.
.and that any employee leaving the plant during working hours with-
out express permission to do so would automatically sever his employ-
ment with the company. Notices to this effect were placed on the
bulletin board and were read to most of the employees by foremen.
Some of the employees denied that they ever saw or heard of these
notices prior to 3: 30 p. m. but in view of the testimony by both the
respondent's and the Board's witnesses relating to the general circula-
tion of these notices, we cannot give credence to this testimony.
At 3: 30 p. in., 22 of the respondent's approximately 150 employees
left their work and "rang out" their cards. As they did so they were
requested by the foremen, who stood at the time clocks, to surrender
their time cards. The following morning many of those employees
returned and, not finding their cards in the rack, left the plant. At
3: 30 p. in., on July 15, four more employees left their work. On
July 16, one person walked out at 3: 30 p. in. On July 19, two per-
sons walked out at 3:30 p. m. All these walk-outs occurred for the
same reason and in the same manner as that of July 14.
On July 21 the Union voted a full strike against the respondent.
Clarence Jacobs, Myrtie Medberg and the 29 employees who had al-
ready walked out joined the strike at this time. June Proudman,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 759
who had not worked at the respondent 's plant since June 28, 1937,
when she had become ill, joined the picket line on August 1, 1937.
The strike lasted for approximately 3 months. Of the 32 employees
of the respondent who participated in the strike , Howard Hartzell,
Clarence Jacobs, C. W . Parrette , and Leslie Mason have stated that
they do not desire to be employed by the respondent . The company
has offered employment to Francher Holsberg and to Clarence Jacobs.
Holsberg has accepted this offer and was employed by the respondent
at the time of the hearing . Lucius Mosher applied for a position
with the respondent on October 1, 1937, and was told that there was
no work available for him, The remaining persons named in the
complaint have not applied for their former positions with the re-
'spondent and have not been offered positions by respondent. There
is no evidence that they do not wish to be reemployed by the
respondent.
The respondent 's contention is that inasmuch as no strike was
voted by the Union prior to July 21, the walk-out by 29 of the re-
spondent 's employees did not constitute a strike and that therefore
the respondent was justified in discharging all employees who walked
out on July 14, 15, 16 , and 19 for the reason that they violated a rule
of the respondent 's plant forbidding employees to leave the plant
during working hours.
We do not agree with the respondent in- its contention that no
strike existed prior to July 21 . A strike exists when a group of
employees ceases work in order to secure compliance with a demand
for higher wages, shorter hours, or other conditions of employment,
the refusal of which by the employer has given rise to a labor dis-
pute. The cessation of work by a group is no less a strike because
the group itself may not have considered its action to constitute a
strike. Nor is the cessation of work any less a strike because, it
-occurs at the moment that work would have ceased if the demand
for the shorter working day had been granted. , Nor does the fact
that the persons who walked out desired to return the following
day in order to work for 8 hours alter the strike character of their
activity , since a refusal to work the number of hours required by an
employer is tantamount to an absolute refusal to work. We find
therefore, that a strike was instituted by a group of 'Union mem-
bers against the respondent on July 14, 1937 , at 3:30 p. in. for the
purpose of enforcing their demand for an 8-hour day.
We do not find , however, that the purported discharge of the em-
ployees who left the plant at 3: 30 on July 14, 15, 16, and 19 con-
^stituted a discharge . These employees , as we have just pointed out,
were engaging in a strike and had no intention at that time of re-
turning to work upon the respondent 's terms. Consequently the
respondent's statement that they were discharged had, at that time,
106791-38-vol vu -49
760 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no actual effect upon their tenure of employment. As we have pre-
viously observed, such statements are primarily intended, not to
effectuate a' discharge, but as a tactical step designed ,to coerce, the
employees into resuming work or to defer those remaining at work
from going out on strike.'
We find, therefore, that the respondent did not discharge the 29
employees when they left the respondent's plant at 3:30 p. m. on
July 14, 15, 16, and 19, and, consequently, it is unnecessary for us
to consider the justification of the "discharge."
Since there was no discharge at the time the strike began and
since the evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint
that the respondent refused to reinstate the employees after a re-
quest to do so, we find that the respondent did not discriminate in
regard to the hire and tenure of the persons named in the complaint.
The complaint will be dismissed with respect to the allegations that
the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
However, since the purpose and the effect of the respondent's
action in threatening to discharge and in purporting to discharge
its employees who walked out was to restrain them from engaging
in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, the re-
spondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The fact that the respondent
sought to justify its action by promulgating a plant rule does not
alter our conclusion, since an employer cannot, in the name of plant
discipline, coerce his employees. for the purpose of discouraging
collective activity.
C. Unfair labor practices subsequent to the beginning of the strike
On the morning of July 15, 1937, the day following the beginning
of the strike, there was circulated among the respondent's employees
during working hours a petition stating that the signers felt that
the Union had been unfair and that they wished to establish a new
independent company union. Ethan Allen, a member of the Union,
and Aynard Anderson, a witness called by the respondent, both
testified that among those circulating the paper was Charles Ander-
son, a foreman. This testimony was not contradicted. William
Howard, another Union member, testified that Bascom, a fellow
employee, was given express permission by Frank Anderson, a fore-
man, to halt the work of a group of employees and to speak to
them in order to urge their signing the petition. This testimony
also was uncontradicted.
? See Matter of Biles -Coleman Lumber Company and Puget Sound District Council of
Lumber and Sawmill Workers , 4 N L. R B. 679 ; Matter of Stack pole Carbon Company
and United Electrical & Radio Workers of Ame,aca, Local No 509, 6 N. L R B 171
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 761
Warren Anderson, an employee and a son of Charles Anderson a
foreman, was given permission by his foreman to leave the plant
during working hours to arrange for a hall in which to hold a meet-
ing that night for the purpose of forming the new organization. A
notice announcing the meeting was permitted to remain on the re-
spondent's bulletin board while a notice announcing a meeting of the
Union was turned toward the wall by Martin, the respondent's gen-
eral manager, so that it was no longer visible to persons in the plant.
At the meeting which was held on the night of July 15 and which
was attended by a large group of the respondent's employees, includ-
ing three foremen, Bert Jay, Charles Anderson, and Earl Chapman,
two pieces of business were transacted. A motion was passed that all
those attending the meeting should resign from the Union, and
officers of the new organization were elected.
Warren Anderson acted as chairman of this meeting and was
elected president of the new organization. Lawrence Anderson,
another son of Charles Anderson, was elected treasurer. Vance.
Verdine, an employee who had been active during the day in circulat-
ing petitions, was elected secretary. Verdine was the one nonsuper-
visory employee of the respondent who on July 22 accompanied Mar-
tin and Charles Anderson to a meeting of the officials of the village
of Falconer at which there was discussed the question of the measures
to be taken by the governmental authorities of the county and the
village in regard to the strike. This circumstance indicates strongly
the close relationship which Verdine bore to the respondent's man-
agement.
Martin's own testimony indicates that he knew of the formation
and the activities of the new organization. In view of the relation-
ship between him and the leaders of the organization his acquiescence
in their actions, contrasted with the hostile attitude which he dis-
played toward the Union, was equivalent to encouragement of the
new organization.
The organization created on July 15 never adopted a name; it has-
never requested the respondent to bargain collectively; and it has
never transacted any business except to'adopt the motion mentioned
above. Furthermore, after holding but one further meeting, it
became completely inactive.
The reason advanced for the formation of the new organization
was that the procedure of the Union to which the respondent's em-
ployees had formerly belonged was undemocratic. It would appoar
to be more likely that the fault of the Union which was remedied,
by the new organization was that it presented demands to the re-
spondent for shorter hours and higher wages, since, once the Union
762 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceased to constitute a threat to the respondent, The Independent
Company Union also ceased to function.
We conclude that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of a labor organization and
has thereby engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
On July 27, 1937, the respondent inserted a large advertisement
in two Jamestown, New York, newspapers, in which it stated the
following :
The presently much noised but inferior RIGHT TO STRIKE ,and
RIGHT TO PICKET are merely LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES.
More than 807o of our employees have continued at work in
spite of threats and attempts at intimidation by a small minority
who have listened too much to the voice of the outside agitator.
Relying upon the common law of the State of New York, this
factory will continue to operate and give employment to those
of its employees who choose to work.
The respondent contends that it was justified in advising its em-
ployees of their rights inasmuch as there had been violence on the
picket line and that, in any case, the advertisement did not dis-
courage memberships in the Union. It was improper, however, to
characterized the leaders of the Union as "outside agitators." This
epithet, so freely used by opponents of labor organizations, is intended
to provoke the antagonism which is easily aroused in many people
against strangers to the community. It, of course, ignores the fact
that in many situations it is only the "outsider," whose economic life
is not at the mercy of the employer, who can safely and effectively
i'epresent the employees' interests. The further inference, from the
advertisement, that the strikers were dupes of such a person was
-likewise unwarranted and improper. We find that the respondent, in
publishing the advertisements and in procuring resignations from the
Union through the medium of the labor organization which it aided,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
tiVe find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
TIT .above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a substantial relation to
itrade,!traffic, and commerce among.the several States and in foreign
,countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
THE REMEDY
763
Since we have not found that the strike was induced or prolonged
by the unfair labor practices in which the respondent engaged, we
shall not make our usual order in such cases that the strikers be
reinstated to the positions which they held prior to the beginning
of the strike.
Under the circumstances of this case there is grave danger that,
in the absence of an order by us , the respondent will not reemploy
the strikers even if their former or substantially equivalent positions
are open, since it has contended throughout these proceedings that
the strikers were discharged for proper cause and since it has already
shown itself to be predisposed towards engaging in unfair labor
practices with respect to them. We shall order, therefore , that the
respondent place the strikers upon a list of its employees who are
temporarily laid off and that it shall offer them employment in the
order of their seniority upon the list when employment becomes
available before hiring other persons.
Since the respondent did not offer evidence in support of its con-
tention that June Proudman was not an employee at the time the
strike occurred and since persons absent from their work because
of illness normally remain employees , we shall order her name to be
included in the list of persons to be offered employment by the re-
spondent when it becomes available. We shall not, however , include
in the list the names of Leslie Mason, Francher Holsberg, Clarence
Jacobs and Christopher W. Parrette since they do not desire employ-
ment with the respondent . We shall also exclude Howard Hartzell,
since he was employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case , the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local No. 6, Organized Furniture Workers and the organiza-
tion described in the complaint as The Independent Company Union
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By its domination of and interference with the formation and
administration of the labor organization described in the complaint
as The Independent Company Union , the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
764 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The persons listed in appendix A are employees of the respond-
ent, within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are'unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor,Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, American Manufacturing Concern, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From dominating or interfering with the administration of
the organization described in the complaint as The Independent Com-
pany Union, or with the formation or administration of any other
labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support
to the organization described in the complaint as The Independent
Company Union, or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organ-
ization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
.and other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Place the employees listed in appendix A upon a list of em-
ployees temporarily laid off and offer employment to them in the
order of their seniority upon this list when employment becomes
available before hiring other persons;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant notices
stating that American Manufacturing Concern will cease and desist
in the manner aforesaid, and maintain such notices for a period of
thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further ordered that the allegations of the complaint that
the American Manufacturing Concern has refused to reemploy and
to reinstate 32 named individuals be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
APPENDIX A
Ethan Allen
Glen Bailey
Harris Becker
Glenn Bloss
Gerald Boyer
Henry Cady
Emma Carlson
Fern Chandler
Sam Cimo
Archie Cross
Carl Dahlin
LaVerne Erickson
George Fitch
Ardel Houston
William Howard
Arthur Jones
Arthur Meyers
Lucius Mosher
Harold Nyberg
Frank Parasilite
June Proudman
Orrin Rickerson
Hattie Ridby
Albert Roman
Gordon Schultz
Myrtie Wedberg
George Winn
765