Cannon Electric Development Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND JAMES
H. CANNON, AN INDIVIDUAL, DOING BUSINESS AS CANNON ELECTRIC
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, LODGE 311
In the Matter of CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND JAMES
H. CANNON, AN INDIVIDUAL, DOING BUSINESS AS CANNON ELECTRIC
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos . 21-C-24.28 and 01-C-.474, respectively .Decided Decem-
ber 16, 1946
Mr. Charles M. Ryan, for the Board.
Mr. David H.. Cannon, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondents.
Miss Judy Dunks, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the UE.
Mr. Maurice M. Miller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 12, 1946, the Board issued its Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order in the above-
entitled proceedings, a copy of which is attached hereto. Thereafter,
the respondents filed exceptions, and a brief in support thereof.
The Board has considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, Pro-
posed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, the respondents' ex-
ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
as its final decision and order said Proposed Findings of Fact, Pro-
posed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, with the following
additions and modifications :
1. Although the respondents except to the proposed finding that the
Contact Committee was a labor organization which represented their
employees, their brief concedes, for the sake of argument, that the
Committee was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act,
and argues only that the organization was not dominated or controlled
1 The parties agreed that Cannon Electric Development Company was the correct name
for the business operations of this respondent , and the pleadings and other formal papers
were amended accordingly.
71 N. L. R. B., No. 178.
1059
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
by the respondents. The evidence to which our attention is directed
uz this connection, however, was considered in detail in the prepara-
tion of the proposed finding. The statements contained in the docu-
ments cited by the respondents were not disregarded as self-serving
statements, but constitute the very basis for our finding that the Con-
tact Committee was a creation of the respondents and that it operated
as a bar to the freedom of self-organization guaranteed by the Act.
We find the exceptions of the respondents in this connection to be
without merit, and affirm the finding that the respondents dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Com-
mittee, and contributed support to it, within the meaning of Section b
(2) of the Act.
2. The respondents except to the proposed finding that their en-
forcement of a no-solicitation rule was marked by disparity of treat-
ment. Counsel for the respondents contends, in the first instance, that
the rule in question was reasonable. We have had occasion in previous-
decisions to point out that the Act does not prevent an employer from
making and enforcing reasonable rules to govern the conduct of em-
ployees on company time. It is equally clear, however, that any rule
designed to prohibit union solicitation by an employee outside of
working hours, although on company property, represents an unrea-
sonable restraint upon the exercise by employees of the rights guar-
anteed by the Act. Such a rule must be presumed to be an unreason-
able impediment of self-organization, and therefore discriminatory,
in the absence of evidence that special circumstances make the rule
necessary in order to maintain production or discipline.2 Such evi-
dence is not present here.
Irrespective of the nature of the rule, respondents contend that
there is no basis for a finding that their enforcement of it was marked
by disparity of treatment. We note, however, that their argument in
this connection admits by inference the factual basis of the finding
and merely asserts that wrongful laxity in the application of the rule
to one of the competing organizations could not be cured by the grant
of equal treatment to the other. We find no merit in this contention.
Upon the entire record, including, but without limitation, the demon-
strated knowledge and partisanship of Superintendent Cromwell with
respect to the organization sponsored by Ned Mandella, the undenied
testimony of Monjar that her activities on behalf of that organization
were never subjected to interference by foremen, although carried on
in their presence, and the contrasting treatment of Lawrence Wiley-
we find ample basis for a finding that the rule in question, whatever
Matter of Peyton Packing Company , 49 N L. R B . 828, enforced 142 P. ( 2d) 1008
(C C. A. 5), cert. denied 323 U. S. 730.
CAN NON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1061
the motive which led to its adoption, was directed in practice against
UE, and that its application in the manner described was intended
by those immediately responsible for its enforcement to discourage
membership in that organization, and to encourage adherence to the
Cannon Employees Association.
3. The contention of the respondents that their first agreement with
CEA was approved by our Regional Office is patently in error. It
appears to be based upon the assertion by witnesses for the respondents
that copies of the agreement in question were forwarded to the Re-
gional Office, and that the office failed to express any opposition or
other opinion with respect thereto. The Regional Office, however, was,
clearly under no obligation to act in such a situation; its failure to act
cannot be described as implied or express approval of the agreement.
Indeed, the expression of any opinion with respect thereto, under the
circumstances cited by the respondents, would be beyond the authority
conferred upon the Board and its agents by the Act. We find no
merit, therefore, in the contention of the respondents that the provi-
sion in their agreements with CEA regarding the check-off of dues
has received the approval of this Board.
In connection with the proposed order directing the reimburse-
ment of dues checked off to CEA, the respondents argue that they
could not properly have publicized the voluntary features of the
check-off, on the ground that CEA could have charged them with inter-
ference if they had done so. We find this contention to be without
merit. The record contains no indication that copies of the agree-
ment in question were ever posted for the information of employees,
although such action would appropriately have served the desired
purpose. Similarly, a notice couched in purely informative language,
designed to explain the obligation of the respondents and the rights
of employees under the agreement, could not in itself have been con-
sidered interference within the meaning of the Act.
4. The respondents except to statements made in connection with
a proposed finding which characterizes letters addressed by James H.
Cannon to Harry Bridges, in the spring of 1942, as a vilification of
Bridges, the UE, and the type of trade unionism which they were al-
leged to represent, incorrectly assuming that the proposed finding of
a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act in this connection is based
upon the aforesaid letters to Bridges. Our finding is actually based
upon the "similar statements" embodied in an open letter to the
employees.
5. The argument of the respondents in support of their exception
with respect to the present status of CEA, and the present contractual
relationship between the respondents and their employees, is appar-
ently based upon the erroneous assumption that the proposed findings
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with respect to the 8 (2) allegations of the complaint are bottomed in
part upon these factors. Upon the present record, however, the rela-
tionship of the respondent to MESA is irrelevant to any charge of
company domination and interference, and the facts with respect to
present contractual relations are set forth merely to complete the
history of employee organization at the plants involved herein.
Similarly, the respondents' assumption that we considered the speed
of their initial contractual negotiations with CEA as a factor in the
proposed finding of support and domination appears to rest upon a
misconception of the significance attached to that fact. We do not
rely on that fact in the determination that CEA is a company domi-
nated organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
6. The argument of the respondents in support of their exception
with respect to the separation of Florence Maynard is based entirely
upon an admission by Maynard in the letter distributed to employees
before her ouster by the Cannon Employees Association. Although
Caffarel testified clearly and without contradiction, as noted in the
proposed findings, that he had been separated contemporaneously with
Maynard, under circumstances which established that both were dis-
charged, the respondents have offered no evidence based upon their
own records or other reliable testimony to establish that the separa-
tion of Maynard occurred under other circumstances. We find the
exception of the respondents in this connection, therefore, to be with-
out merit.
7. With respect to the dismissal of Armant, the respondents' argue,
in effect, that his treatment by the companies before the discharge on
which the complaint is based should be considered as evidence of their
good faith in discharging him. While it is true that the respondents
failed to act on several earlier requests by CEA for Armant's dis-
charge, the record as a whole does not support the contention that
they were finally "forced" to dispense with his services. In their
brief the respondents refer to the hearing which preceded his dis-
charge as an "arbitration" proceeding, although James H. Cannon
testified specifically that this was not the case. Similarly, the state-
ment in the brief that "the respondents were faced with the absolute
necessity of discharging Mr. Armant upon his being rejected as a mem-
ber of CEA" is without foundation in the record, because there is
no evidence that the Board of Directors of the contracting union had
ever taken official action to revoke Armant's membership in that
organization.
The remaining exceptions raise no substantial issue beyond those
already considered and discussed at length in the proposed findings.
We find them to be without merit.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1063
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, Cannon Manufacturing Cor-
poration, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and James
H. Cannon, an individual doing business as the Cannon Electric De-
velopment Company, Los Angeles, California, and his agents, succes-
sors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Con-
tact Committee, by whatever name it may be known, or of the Cannon
Employees' Association, or the formation or administration of any
other labor organization of their employees, and from contributing
financial or other support to the Contact Committee or the Cannon
Employees' Association, or to any other labor organization of their
employees;
(b) Recognizing the Cannon Employees' Association, or any suc-
cessor thereto, as the representative of any of their employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any and all contracts with the Cannon Em-
ployees' Association, or to supplements thereto, or modifications
thereof, or any superseding agreements;
(d) Encouraging membership' in the Cannon Employees' Asso-
ciation, or any other labor organization of their employees, and
discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, or International Association of Machinists, Lodge 311,
unaffiliated, or any other labor organizations of their employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form'labor organizations, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America or International Association of Ma-
chinists, Local 311, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
J064 DECISIONS Or, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act : 3
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Cannon Em-
ployees' Association, as the representative of any of their employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or
other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish that
organization as such representative;
(b) Refrain from recognizing the Contact Committee, by what-
ever name it may be known, as the collective bargaining representa-
tive of any of their employees, in the event that organization should
ever return to active existence ;
(c) Reimburse all employees, whose dues in the Cannon Employees'
Association were checked off by the respondents, for the amounts thus
deducted from their wages since February 15, 1945;
(d) Offer to 'Alvin L. George, Clarence Joseph Armant, Joan Law-
rence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary Sullivan, Morena Monnette
Nye, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, Clarence William Youngberg, Jr., and
Herbert H. Caffarel, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions,' without prejudice to their sen-
iority or other rights and privileges;
(e) Offer to Florence Maynard immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or a substantially equivalent position, in the manner set
`forth in the proposed findings attached hereto, in the section entitled
"The remedy";
(f) Make whole Alvin L. George for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from Septem-
ber 26 to October 15, 1942, when charges filed on his behalf were with-
drawn and from January 16, 1945, to the date of the respondents' offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings 5 during these periods ;
(g) Make whole Clarence Joseph Armant for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against
3 The Board expressly reserves the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement pro-
-visions of this order if made necessasv by a change of conditions in the future, and to make
such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify
their application to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent
4In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
-position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N L. R. B. 827.
5 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L R B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U S 7. -
CANN®N MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1065
him, by payment to him of a suns of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages during the period from
the date of his discharge to October 15, 1942, when charges filed on
his behalf were withdrawn, and from January 16, 1945, to the date
of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings dur-
ing these periods ;
(h) Make whole Joan Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary
Sullivan, Monna Monnette Nye, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, and Clarence
William Youngberg, Jr.,,for any loss of pay which they may have
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against them,
by payment to each of -them of a sum of money equal to the amount
which each normally would have earned as wages from the date on
which charges were filed on their behalf to the date of the respondents'
offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such
period ;
(i) Make whole Florence Maynard for any loss of pay she may have
suffered or may suffer by reason of the respondents' discrimination
against her, by payment to her of a sum of money determined in the
manner set forth in the proposed findings attached hereto, in the
section entitled "The remedy" ;
(j) Make whole Herbert H. Caffarel for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages from July 29, 1944, the
,late of his discriminatory discharge, to the date of the respondents'
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during this period;
(k) Post at their plants in Los Angeles, California, copies of the
notice attached to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclu-
sions of Law and Proposed Order, marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondents' rep-
resentatives, be posted by the respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondents to insure that said notices are npt altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(1) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against Cannon Manu-
facturing Corporation and James H. Cannon, an individual, doing
In the event this order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals , there shall
be inserted, before the words " A Decision and Order ," the words "A DECREE OF THE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING.
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
business as Cannon Electric Development Company, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the respondents discriminated
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Gus Palm, Louis
Tournie, and Louis LaGuerre Drouet.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
PROPOSED ORDER
Mr. Charles M. Ryan, for the Board.
Mr. David H. Cannon, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondents.
Miss Judy Dunks, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the UE.
Mr. Maurice M. Miller, of counsel to the Board.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by International Association of Machinists,
Lodge 311, herein called the IAM, and United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein designated as UE, the National Labor -Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles,
California), issued its consolidated complaint,' dated February 15, 1945, and an
amendment thereto, dated May 7, 1945, against Cannon Manufacturing Corpora-
tion, herein called the Corporation, and James H. Cannon, an individual, doing
business as Cannon Electric Development Company, herein designated as the Com-
pany, both herein designated jointly at times as the respondents, alleging that
the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act Copies of the
consolidated complaint, the amendment thereto, the amended charges, and the
notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Corporation, the Company, the IAM,
UE, and the Cannon Employees Association, herein designated as CEA.
With respect to the alleged unfair labor practices, the amended complaint, as
further amended at the hearing, stated, in substance, that the respondents:
(1) on or about May 20, 1941, had inaugurated, sponsored, promoted and formed
a labor organization among their employees known as the Contact Committee ;
(2) beginning on or about May 20, 1941, and continuing to on or about Sep-
tember 15, 1941, had dominated and interfered with the formation and admin-
istration of the Contact Committee, contributed financial and other support
thereto, and coerced, encouraged, influenced and persuaded their employees to
accept the Contact Committee as a collective bargaining representative; (3) on
or about January 1, 1941, had inaugurated, sponsored, promoted and formed
a labor organization among the employees known as the Cannon Employees
Association, originally known as the Cannon Employees Recreation Association,
herein called CERA; (4) continuously since January 1, 1941, has dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of CEA, contributed finan-
1 The Board, on February 14, 1945, pursuant to Article IT, Section 36 (b) of its Rules
and Regulations as amended, had ordered the consolidation of the cases involved herein.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1067
cial and other support thereto , and coerced , encouraged , influenced and persuaded
their employees to accept CEA as a collective bargaining representative; (5)
entered into and presently have an agreement with CEA, under which they have
required ' and now require as a condition of employment that their employees
join and remain members of CEA and pay dues and assessments to it; (6) by
entering into such an agreement with CEA, which agreement is invalid, and
particularly by the requirement that the employees join and remain members
of that organization and pay dues and assessments to it, have interfered with,
restrained , and coerced their employees and continue to interfere with, restrain,
and coerce them in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act , thereby engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (2) of the
Act-for which conduct the respondents should be required to reimburse and
make whole their employees , including present employees and former employees,
by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount of money which
the employees have paid in dues and assessments to CEA; ( 7) on various dates
between December 5, 1941 and July 29, 1944 , discharged and refused to reinstate
six named employees 2 for the reason that they joined and assisted UE or the
IAM, respectively , opposed CEA , and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for their mutual aid and protection ; ( 8) on or about June 12, 1943,
discharged and refused to reinstate eight named employees 3 for the reason that
they joined and assisted UE and refused to maintain membership in CEA or pay
dues and assessments to it; ( 9) discouraged membership of their employees in
the IAM and UE by making scurrilous , defamatory and derogatory attacks upon
the said labor organizations and their representatives , by threatening their
employees with retaliation and reprisal if they joined or assisted such labor
organizations , and by engaging in surveillance of union meetings and activities ;
and (10 ) by all the foregoing acts interfered with, restrained , and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed In Section 7 of the Act.
The respondents ' answer, as amended at the hearing , admitted the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint as to the Company but denied such allega-
tions as to the Corporation . The answer of the respondents also admitted that
the IAM, UE, and CEA are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act,
but denied that the Cannon Employees Recreational Association and the Contact
Committee were ever labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. In
their answer the respondents further admitted the discharges alleged, but denied
the commission of the unfair labor practices set forth in the amended complaint,
and as an affirmative defense alleged that the Board is estopped from proceeding
on the issues herein for the reason that these issues had been fully determined
and settled by the action of the Board in a previous representation proceeding.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on various dates between May 24,
and June 7 , 1945, at Los Angeles , California , before James C. Batten, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the
respondents were represented by counsel , and the UE by its representative.
All participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and
cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded to all parties.
At the opening of the hearing , counsel for the Board served upon the parties
a "Second Amendment to the Complaint ." Counsel for the respondents, by
agreement of the parties, was thereupon granted additional time to file an
2 Gus Palm , Alvin L. George , Clarence Joseph Armant, Florence Maynard, Herbert H.
Caffarel , and Louis La Guerre Drouet.
3 Joan Lawrence , Erma A. Evenstad , Vivian Mary Sullivan , Monna Monnette Nye, Louis
Tournie , Ada Lish , Eloise Hunt, and Clarence William Youngberg, Jr.
1068 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amended answer. The respondents also moved for a continuance, upon the
ground that the second amendment to the complaint entirely changed the issues.
The motion was denied.4 Counsel for the respondents also objected to any hearing
on the complaint, upon the ground that the issues framed therein had been
passed upon with a degree of finality by the National Labor Relations Board,
as set forth in the affirmative defense in the respondents' answer. The Trial
Examiner overruled the objection Counsel for the respondents then requested
the exclusion of all witnesses, except a representative of the respondents and
representatives of the complaining labor organizations. The motion was granted,
but respondents' counsel withdrew it when the Trial Examiner refused to permit
more than one representative of the respondents to remain at the hearing,
under a uniform application of the rule. Counsel for the respondents renewed
the motion for the exclusion of witnesses later in the hearing, at which time
the Trial Examiner stated that he had no objection to the exclusion of witnesses
if the rule were uniformly applied. Counsel for the respondents and the Board
gave no indication that they A ere willing to have the rule invoked upon such
a basis. At the close of the testimony, Board's counsel moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof with respect to names, dates, and other formal matters.
There was no objection, but the Trial Examiner failed to make a formal ruling
on the motion. The motion is hereby granted. Counsel for the respondents
then moved to dismiss the entire consolidated proceeding, upon the ground
that all the issues involved had theretofore been heard and determined by
the Board, and were well known to UE, the IAM, and the Board at the time
of two earlier elections, the consent election of September 9, 1941 and the Board-
ordered election of January 25, 1943. The motion was denied. At the con-
clusion of the hearing the parties informally discussed the issues . Briefs were
bled by the Board and the respondents.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at"the hearing are hereby affirmed.
On September 14, 1945, the Board. acting pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (a)
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 3, as
amended, issued an order providing that the case be transferred and continued
before the Board for the issuance of Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con-
clusions of Law, and Proposed Order.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS 5
Cannon Manufacturing Corporation, a California corporation, has its principal
office and place of business at Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of cable connections and electrical specialities. During the calendar
year ending December 31, 1944, the Corporation purchased materials in excess of
$3,000,000, for use in its manufacturing plant, of which materials worth approx-
iniately $500,000 were obtained from sources.outside the State of California
During the same period, the entire manufacturing output of the Corporation,
valued in excess of $7,000,000, was sold to the Cannon Electric Development
Company.
4 The second amendment to the complaint did not change the issues as set forth in the
original complaint, but did stoke from the amended complaint certain allegations of which
the respondents had had proper notice.
5 The findings made herein with respect to the business of the iespondents are based upon
admissions in the amended answer and a stipulation of the parties.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1069,
James H. Cannon, an individual, doing business as Cannon Electric Development
Company, operates as a contracting agency. The Company designs and engineers
the products of the Corporation, conducts all necessary advertising, and handles
all sales In 1941 its sales exceeded $7,000,000 in value Approximately 15 per-
cent of the sales were made directly to the United States Government, while 70,
percent were made to aircraft companies having Government contracts, a sub-
stantial percentage being shipped to points outside the State of California
We find that the respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
While the respondents appear to maintain separate legal and accounting iden-
tities, they are in fact operated as a single integrated enteiprise, occupying the
same office and plant.' The Corporation is wholly owned by James H Cannon, but
the managerial control and the operations of both enterprises are closely coordi-
nated. James H Cannon, in his capacity as president of the Corporation and sole
owner of the Company, actively conducts the operations of each, and directs the
labor relations policy of both respondents Since the evidence establishes that
the respondents operate as a unit and maintain a common policy in labor relations
matters, it is clear, and Nye find, that for the purposes of the instant case, the
respondents constitute a single employer under Section 2 (2) of the Act.
II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & :Machine Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondents.
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 311, unaffiliated, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondents.
Cannon Employees Association, originally known as the Cannon Employees
Recreation Association, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondents
The Contact Committee was an unaffiliated labor organization which repre-
sented the employees of the respondents
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Early laboi i elattons b istoi if; accompanying miter fen once, i esti atnt, and
coercion
The employees of the Company s first evidenced interest in a labor organization
in 1937, at which time the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
8 Counsel for the respondents admits that the Company is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, but makes no such admission with respect to the Corporation In
connection with a prior representation proceeding, howevei, discussed more fully herein-
after, the respondents stipulated that the Corporation and the Company were "engaged in
inter state commeice" within the meaning of the Act. Cannon Manufactin ing Corporation,
et al, 46 N L. R. B 592
4 The business was created in 1913 by James II Cannon. operating under the name of
the Cannon Electiic Development Company In 1920 the business was incorporated, but
continued to operate under the wine name until 1939, when it became the Cannon 11lanu-
facturing Coiporation At the sane time James H Canton registered the Cannon Electric
Development Company as the tiade name of a sole proprietorship, which became the en-
gineering and sales agency of the Coiporation Both organizations jointly occupied what
is now known as Plant #1 until late in 1940, when the offices and most of the operations
were moved to a new building, known as Plant #2 Unless otherwise specified, the indi-
viduals involved in the present proceeding were officers, supervisors, or employees of the
Corporation, which employed approximately 1,300 of the 1,500 persons on the pay roll of
the respondents
8 See footnote 7, supra
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
executed a written agreement with the firm. In the spring of 1938, the IAM
requested recognition . The resulting correspondence between that organization
and the Company included several letters in which James H. Cannon vilified
the Union , threatened to discharge union supporters in his employ , and indicated
that he would welcome an " inside" organization of his employees "to discuss
problems of mutual interest " with management. He declared , inter alga, that
the Union was "promoting" the idea that employees could "blackmail" higher
wages out of an employer, characterized the Wagner Act as "one of the most
flagrant miscarriages of justice" in the statute books, and promised that "any
undue activity" by the employees would result in "tragedy." In a letter dated
May 11, 1938 , Cannon declared that he possessed "sufficient `intestinal fortitude'
to tell any outside organization that tries to `horn in ' and disorganize the workers,
to go to hell ," and invited dissatisfied employees to resign , as he saw no reason for
"wasting further time in discu§sing the formation of a clique that could dominate
the operation of (the ) business over the will of the management." ' During the
same period , according to the undenied and credited testimony of Alvin George,
a witness for the Board , Plant Superintendent Roy Cromwell suggested that he
attend an IAM meeting , and questioned him thereafter about the number present,
the identity of those who conducted the meeting, and the nature of the discussion.
On June 21 , 1938, the IAM reached an agreement with the Company , effective
from year to year thereafter, subject to modification or termination at the end
of any yearly period. This contract has never been formally terminated, but the
available evidence indicates, and we find, that the grievance committee established
by its terms did not function in 1939 and 1940 'There is no further evidence
of IAM organizational activity among the respondents' employees before the filing
of the charges which initiated the present consolidated proceeding.
B. Company domination and support of employee organizations; accompanying
interference , restraint , and coercion
1. The Contact Committee
In December, 1940, shortly after the respondents had transferred the major
part of their operations to Plant #2, as already noted, UE began an organizational
campaign among the respondents' employees. James H. Cannon testified that this
activity on behalf of UE coincided with a fourfold expansion of the Corporation
pay roll-a development which created a number of "personnel problems," and
which led Cannon to the conclusion that some method for dealing with grievances
and the adjustment of working conditions was essential. Accordingly, on May
20, 1941, he issued an open letter to the employees, in which he suggested the
formation of an employees' "Contact Committee" for this purpose. The letter
indicated the manner in which the Committee would function, the type of men who
should be nominated to it, and set forth in some detail the election procedure to be
used. Cannon promised that Committee members would receive additional pay
and clerical help. He concluded with a general discussion of his plans for em-
ployee welfare, expressed the. belief that the proposed system would bring sub-
stantial benefits to the employees, and appealed for their cooperation 10
9 While we believe it to be likely that these letters were seen by employees of the Corn-,
pany , there is no testimony to indicate that this occurred . We make no finding, therefore,
that these statements constitute interference , restraint , or coercion . They serve , neverthe-
less, to indicate the general attitude of the respondents to so-called "outside" organizations,
and we have considered them in evaluating other conduct ascribed to the respondents and
discussed more fully hereinafter.
ii On May 26, 1941, when UE requested the respondents to recognize a grievance com-
mittee on behalf of UE members , the request was refused by the respondents.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1071
The letter of May 20 was distributed at the plant gates by the staff of the
"Cannoneer," a monthly publication of the respondents. Shortly thereafter, Mary
Torrence, assistant editor of the ' Cannoneer," conducted two elections in the
plant to enable the employees to select the membership of the Committee. The
employees cast their ballots on company time One week later, Tore ence an-
nounced the results, and also announced that the Committee would hold its first
meeting in the plant conference room
The newly elected group met as scheduled, with James H Cannon and his son
Rober Cannon, vice president and general manager of the Corporation, in attend-
ance. The Cannons suggested that its organization be completed, and officers were
then elected. Herbert Ceffarel was named chairman of the group His letter of
thanks, which accompanied a statement of committee procedut e signed by James
H. Cannon, was revised by the editor of the "Cannoneer" and distributed at the
plant gates by the staff of that publication Thereafter, the Committee met
frequently on the swing shift in the plant conference room and discussed employee
grievances in the presence of James H. Cannon or his son.11 On several occasions,
in open letters to the employees, Cannon praised the Committee and urged the
employees to support it. The Committee fell into a state of desuetude, however,
and eventually ceased to function after having been in existence for approximately
3 months.' -
It is clear from the above recital, and we find, that the Contact Committee
was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and
that it was a creation of the respondents in its entirety The Committee was
formed and existed for the purpose of dealing and did deal with the respondents
concerning grievances and conditions of work It came into being through the
direct solicitation of the respondents, and was dominated by the Cannons, father
and son, throughout its entire period of activity. The contention of the re-
spondents that Committee members were chosen in a free and secret ballot,
and functioned without inteiference, is not supported by the record We find
that the Contact Committee was intended, and did operate, as a bar to the
freedom of self-organization guaranteed by the Act By their conduct, as set
forth above, the respondents have dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the Contact Committee, and contributed support to it,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, thereby interfering with,
restraining and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2 The Cannon Employees Recreation Association and the Cannon Employees
Association
On the day after a UE sound truck first appeared before the respondents'
plant, in January 1941, Ned Mandella, a tool crib attendant, placed a petition
on the tool crib counter and asked employees to sign it "to keep out the CIO."
The document was later designated as a list of membership applications for
the Cannon Employees Recreation Association. One of the employees solicited
by Mandella was Alvin L. George, a carpenter. The latter refused to sign,
advising Mandella that he did not believe such a petition could properly be
circulated on company time. Within the week, George was called into the office
11 Caffarel testified that the Committee considered one grievance involving a dischargee
who sought reinstatement , and also brought to the attention of management a case in
which several employees complained about the conduct of their foremen
1' The Committee has never been disestablished Tames H Cannon admitted further that
the respondents' employees have never been mfoimed officially that the Committee has
ceased to exist.
717734-47-vol. 71-69
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Plant Superintendent Ray Cromwell, who asked why he did not join the
organization which Mandella was forming When George stated that he did
not wish to get in trouble with the respondents, Cromwell replied that it was
all right, and that the respondents knew what Mandella was doing He stated
that the organization would be a,"company union," and asked George to join.
However, despite further solicitation by Mandella, George refused to become
a member of the new organization, and eventually joined UE, as hereinafter
noted.
Other witnesses stated that the petition which Mandella asked them to sign
identified the organization being formed as a "club" designed to sponser recre-
ational and athletic activities. Shortly after the initial circulation of the
petition, a bulletin board for CERA announcements was erected near the office
of Superintendent Cromwell. Bulletins announcing a forthcoming election of
officers for CERA were posted thereon Lawrence Wiley, an employee, testified
credibly that these bulletins, which included a suggested slate of officers, remained
posted for a week, and that the election was held shortly thereafter. A ballot
box was placed near Cromwell's office, ballots were distributed in the various
departments, and employees were permitted to vote during working hours Wiley
and two other employees counted the ballots in the plant. Ned Mandella was
elected president of the organization.
The officers and board of directors selected in this fashion held several meetings
between January and April 1941.1 During this period various representatives of
the organization continued to solicit members among the employees, and dis-
tributed membership cards in the name of CERA li The record, however, con-
tains no indication that CERA ever functioned in the fashion indicated by its
name.
In the meantime, on February 28, 1941, Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
for an organization known as the Cannon Employees Association were filed with
the State authorities The CEA, organized as a non-profit corporation, was au-
thorized to engage in a wide range of welfare activities and to act as a labor
organization. According to the credited testimony of Wiley, a director of CERA
and ones of the incorporators of CEA, the directors of the Cannon Employees Rec-
reation Association voted in April 1941 to change the name of the organization
to Cannon Employees Association and to continue operations under the charter
and bylaws previously noted" Although Wiley and one of the other directors
resigned almost immediately thereafter, Ned Mandella retained his position
as president of the new organization without any further election. He appointed
two directors to replace those who had resigned, and the board of directors of
CERA continued to act as the governing body of the new organization.
On or about May 20, 1941, Elsie Monjar, an employee, had a conversation with
Mandella in the plant, in which the latter stated that CERA, CEA, and the
13 Joseph Lewis, an attorney who subsequently iepiesented the Cannon Employees Associ-
ation, was present at two of these meetings
14 The Err,', membership cards distributed hoie the trade mark of the respondents, but
this distiiigc`_shing feature was omitted when the cards were subsequently reprinted Both
Janes lI C'lnon and Robert Cannon testified that this use of the respondents' trade mark
was entirely unauthorized, that they had been unaware of its use on CERA cards until the
matter was c`illed to their attention, and that Mandella was immediately ordered to dis-
continue the use of cards bearing the firm trade mark The trade mark is prominently
displayed throughout the plant and can he reproduced without the use of a special cut Its
use by CERA, therefoie, cannot be considered indicative of support by the respondents, in
the absence of direct evidence that its use in the manner indicated was authorized or
permitted by them
15 Wiley testified that Mandella said the action was being taken "to keep out the CIO"
by setting up CEA as a labor organization.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1073
Cannon Employees Weltare Association," "are all mine." He told Moujar that
CERA and CEA "are the same thing." and that "the boss" had asked him to
organize CEA. In response to a question by Monjar, Mandella stated that it
was not a company union but an "employees union," designed to keep out the
CIO He invited Monjar to solicit members for CEA on her shift, and advised
her to "organize" during working hours Moujar did solicit members for CEA
thereafter. She turned in lists of new members and the initiation fees she col-
lected to secretary of CEA during the working hours of the latter, at which
time the secretary gave her membership cards for distribution to new members.
CERA membership cards were used to record the dues payments of CEA members
as late as July 1941, although the former organization supposedly had ceased
to exist in April i' According to Monjar's uncontradicted testimony, which we
credit, the foreman of the department in which the secretary worked observed
her conversations with Mandella and the secretary on each of the occasions on
which they conferred, but never interfered.
On several occasions during this period, James H Cannon distributed open
letters to the employees, and copies of correspondence with UE which clearly
indicated his hostility to that organization. These letters included state-
ments that the respondents would never operate a closed shop, that "outside"
organizations would never dictate to the companies, and that UE had niisrep-
resented the position of the respondents with respect to its organizational activi-
ties. On July 3, 1941, in a letter to UE which was also distributed to the em-
ployees, Cannon challenged the UE to prove an alleged statement that he was
dishonest, or to withdraw from the plant.
Herbert Caffarel was another employee approached by Mandella, who re-
quested that he assist in the organization of CEA Calla lel was given a badge
which identified him as a "Member of the Board of Directors" and solicited
members for CEA on the plant premises during working hours, primarily in
his own department. '
On June 9, 1941, CEA filed with the Board a petition for an investigation
and certification of representatives. During the months that followed, both
UE and CEA appear to have engaged in extensive organizational activity within
the plant of the respondents. Adherents of both organizations solicited mem-
bership during working hours. On August 15, 1941, the respondents issued a
pamphlet, "Employee Information and Regulations," which provided enter alia
that employees were not to solicit membership in any organization "during
working hours or on company property."The record established, however, that
10 A welfare organizat.on whose activities are not otherwise relevant in this proceeding.
0 Counsel for the respondents contended these was no connection between CERA and
CE-A It is clear from the above that this contention is without merit when called as a
witness for the respondents, James H Cannon admitted the connection between, the two
organizations His testimony on direct examination ieads as tollows
A The C E A started to organize, I guess, under that old name of the Association.
Q The Cannon Employees Recreation Association')
A. Yes, Sir
"The rule, as quoted, is obviously too broad See Peyton Pecking Company. 49
N L R B 828 enforced 142 F (2d) 1009 (C. C A 5). It was iesanded, however, in
March 1942, and has not been enforced since that date
We note, in this connection, that the bylaws of CEA, adopted earlier in 1941, listed 17
"Grounds for Discharge of Members " The regulations described above listed 13 types of
activity which they would consider "Causes for Discharge " Eleven of the causes for dis-
charge cited by the respondents are identical with types of activity previously listed by
CEA as giounds for dschaige The hyliws of CEA were amended subsequently. and the
title of the section to which reference is made was changed to isail "Grounds for Expulsion
of Members." '
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Caffarel, Mandella and other employees continued to solicit members for CEA
on the respondents' premises thereafter, and there is no specific evidence of
disciplinary action by the respondents against supporters of the aforesaid
organization."
We find no indication in the record that representatives of management know-
ingly permitted UE supporters to engage in similar activities on company time.
The evidence is to the contrary and the freedom accorded to Mandella, Caffarel
and others, to solicit on behalf of CEA during working hours, stands in marked
contrast to the treatment of volunteer organizers for UE.20 Lawrence Wiley,
who had joined UE and became a steward shortly after his resignation from
CERA, was approached at his machine on or about August 28, 1941, by two
employees who inquired about joining the CIO Despite Wiley's refusal to
discuss the matter during working hours, they returned several times and he
finally gave them membership cards. Within a few minutes Howard Jorgensen,
Superintendent Cromwell's secretary, called Wiley into the office of the latter,
and Cromwell discharged him forthwith for soliciting in behalf of the Union
on company time.
Thereafter, on September 2, UE called a strike of the respondents' employees,
to protest the discharge of Wiley and several other UE stewards who had been
dismissed at the same time. Local representatives of the armed services and
the Office of Production Management arranged a conference of the interested
parties forthwith. As a result of the conference which was held at the Regional
Office of the Board and attended by representatives of UE, CEA, and the respond-
ents, UE agreed to terminate the strike, the respondents agreed to reinstate the
discharged stewards subject to arbitration, and the parties agreed to a consent
election on the petition then before the Board.
During the week preceding the election, whenever the UE sound truck appeared
before the plant, loud speakers on the plant roof under the control of the
respondents were used to broadcast music with great volume, an action which
effectively interfered with the efforts of UE to solicit support among the em-
ployees. In contrast, the undisputed evidence shows that a few days before the
election some CEA literature was placed on the Corporation's time clock and
was permitted to remain there for the perusal of employees, although a plant
guard was permanently stationed nearby, at a post which commanded a clear view
of the clock. On September 8, according to undisputed testimony, one of the
respondents' foremen, Glenn McClung, appeared at work wearing a CEA
button.21
The election was held on September 9, 1941, and CEA received a majority of
the valid votes cast. Objections to the election filed by UE were overruled by
the Regional Director on October 17.
Shortly thereafter, on a date which does not appear in the record, James II.
Cannon issued a letter to the employees in which he praised CEA, urged the
employees to support it, and spoke of the fact that "the declaration of war" on
19 Some of the volunteer organizers on behalf of CEA were leadmen at the time Although
the record supports an inference that the respondents' leadmen had sufficient authority to
he classified as supeivisors, it is clear that they were considered by all parties to be within
the unit appiopiiate fol collective bargaining at the plant of the respondents Leadmen
were permitted to vote in the 1941 consent election noted hereinafter and there is no indi-
cation of their exclusion fiom the unit in the later election directed by* the Board.
20 Robert Cannon testified that foremen had been instructed to remain neutral and to
enforce the respondents' rules in all cases, regardless of the union involved. He stated gen-
erally that workers had been disciplined for organizing on company time, but made no
specific denial of the testimony summarized herein.
11 On the day of the election, after the results were announced, the same foreman said,
"well, we won the election."
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1075
CEA had upset it "as much as it did the management " Within a week of the
election Foreman Glenn McClung advised Clarence Armant to discard his UE
steward's badge and join CEA.
On or about October 14, 1941, Louis LaGuerre Drouet, who was then a director
of CEA, Andrew Bereznak, its vice-president, and Mandella went to a local branch
of the Citizens National Bank during working hours, where they secured a
loan of $500 on an unsecured note for the use of CEA.22
Thereafter, on October 24, 1941, following a short period of negotiation, the
respondents and CEA executed an agreement effective for a term of 1 year
and indefinitely thereafter, subject to termination on 30 days' notice. The
agreement provided for a union shop, union membership being compulsory
for employees who completed a 90-day probationary period 23 In return, CEA
agreed to accept as members all persons employed by the respondents within
the bargaining unit on the date when the contract was signed who made
written application for membership within 10 days of that date, "as long
as it does not conflict with the bylaws of the Association 24 The agreement
also provided for a voluntary check-off of dues, but the record established
that employees were never clearly notified that check-off authorizations were
voluntary They were asked to authorize the dues check-olf at the same time
they 'a ere told that execution of a membership application was a prerequisite
to continued employment with the respondents.
In November 1941, Frank Hobart, employee relations director and editor-
in-chief of the "Cannoneer," notified Elsie Monjar, a member of the editorial
staff, that she would have to choose between the "Cannoneer" and the "UE-Cannon
News" to which she was also contributing Hobart informed Monjar that,
22 Although Drouet was the principal witness in this connection, our findings on this
point are not based on his testimony, but on the testimony of H. V. Vogelsang, branch
manager of the bank, and Robert Cannon. Drouet's testimony, consideied in its total.ty,
and in the light of his prior inconsistent statements under oath, does not impress us as
credible None of the findings made herein are based upon testimony supplied by Drouet.
In testifying as to the bank loan now under discussion, H. V. Vogelsang, branch manager
of the bank, stated that lie had approved an unsecured loan to these employees without any
investigation of their financial resources or credit standing, other than a telephone call
to verify their status as employees of the Corporation. While admitting on direct
examination that he knew James H Cannon, and that the latter had had an account with
the bank in 1941, Vogelsang denied that Cannon was now a director of the bank, and
testified that he did not believe Cannon had occupied that position in 1941 Robert Cannon
testified that he had received a telephone call from Vogelsang when the application for
the loan was made, but stated that he had merely advised Vogelsang as to the employment
status of the applicants. He denied that lie had sent the men to the bank, denied any
advance knowledge of their intention to seek a loan, and denied that he had guaranteed
the loan in any way.
While the testimony of Vogelsang indicated that the loan was made without adequate
investigation, there is no direct evidence that his willingness to advance the money in this
fashion was due to assurances by the respondents Although there appears to be ground
for suspicion that the action of the bank was motivated by such assurance, the evidence
fails to establish that such was the ease, and accordingly we make no finding to that
effect herein. -
i2 In this connection, w e note that the 1937 contract with the IBEW, and the 1938
agieement with the IAM, had not provided for any form of union security. James H.
Cannon testified he had announced at the time that he would never sign a closed-shop
contract with an affiliated union. There is no evidence that the respondents opposed the
inclusion of a union security clause in their contract with CEA
2^ On November 5, 1941, CEA requested the dismissal of 122 named employees who had
not signed applications for mcmbeiship within 10 days after the execution of the agree-
ment On December 3, the organization requested the discharge of 13 named employees
(including 6 of the persons named in the complaint), on the ground that its board of
directors had voted to reject their applications for membership. There is no retold of the
ultimate disposition made of this request.
1076 DECTSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in his opinion, her continued activity as a writer for both publications involved
a conflict of interest. Monjar denied that any conflict of interest existed in
fact, but announced her resignation from the staff of the "Cannoneer" as the
result of Hobart's request The record shows that four of the employees
associated with the "Cannoneer" at the time of Monjar's resignation were active
members of CEA, and that six persons subsequently associated with the house
organ contributed simultaneously to the "CEA News," a publication of the
contracting union.22 Hobart testified at the hearing that lie had not knowingly
permitted reporters on the staff of the "CEA News" to write for the "Cannoneer."
However, the editorial staff of the "CEA. News" was listed in that publication ;
and it would seem incredible that Hobart was unaware of the fact that six of
his reporters were also on the staff of the "CEA News " Upon all the evidence,
we find that Hobart was fully cognizant of the related activities of his staff at
all times, and that his action with respect to Monjar was discriminatory.
Several months after the 1941 consent election, CEA held its first election of
officers 2° This election was held in the plant cafeteria, a separate building on
the respondents' premises administered by the Cannon Recreation Association 2'
The polls were open all day. Ballots were counted in the Corporation conference
room after the polls closed. A subsequent run-off 'election was conducted in
similar fashion.
b. Organizational activity in 1942; the Board-ordered election
Sometime in-February 1942, Alvin L. George, a known adherent of UE and one
of the stewards whose discharge had precipitated the walk-out of September
2, was formally charged with a violation of CEA bylaws, as the result of an
incident discussed more fully below.' Although he received no formal hearing
on the charge, and although the record fails to reveal any effort by CEA to ex-
pel him from membership, he was dismissed on March 4, 1942
During 1942, the respondents and CEA conducted an irregular correspondence
on such matters as the dismissal of dues delinquents, and alleged discrimination
against CEA stewards by foremen. The record is silent as to other aspects
of the relationship between the respondents and CEA.
UE, however, had resumed its organizational activities among the employees
of the respondents in the spring of 1942. At the outset of its campaign, Harry
Bridges, Regional Director for the CIO, wrote several letters to James H.
Cannon with respect to the objectives -of UE. Copies of these letters were dis-
tributed to the employees by the Union. The letters written by Cannon in re-
sponse generally villified Bridges, the UE, and the type of trade unionism which
they were alleged to represent. Although there is no evidence that copies of
these letters were distributed to the employees, an open letter distributed to them
on May 29, 1942, contained similar statements. In a letter to the employees
dated June 19, 1942, James H. Cannon stated that a new agreement would soon
be negotiated, and that a "representative setup" in CEA was "well under way,
zs The record also shows that Monjar was the only employee who ever wrote simultaneously
for UE and the aforesaid publication of the respondents.
20 Sometime prior to this event, on a date which does not appear in the record, Mandella
approached Caffarel, chairman of the Contact Committee, and suggested that the Com-
mittee be disbanded The Committee did vote to disband, and Mandella, who was present
at the meeting, stated that he would like to take the entire Committee into CEA because
of their familiarity with the adjustment of grievances
n This oiganizaion is a non-profit corporation which sponsors recreational activities for
the employees with funds derived from the operation of the cafeteria. It is officered and
operated entirely by agents of the two respondents.
George had become a member of CEA sometime before this incident, in conformity
with the requirements of the existing agreement.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1077
although somewhat behind delivery." Other open letters' distributed in No-
vember 1942, after the filing of the UE petition, described the union circulars
as defamatory, criticized unions generally and the UE in particular for its pre-
vious organizational activity, and warned the employees that labor would have
to face the "vengeful wrath" of returning veterans.
In the meantime, during June of that year, Clarence Joseph Armant, a UE
supporter who maintained membership in CEA under the terms of the existing
contract, was charged with several violations of the CEA bylaws. The charges
were "investigated" by the CEA board of directors. 'o Armant's subsequent dis-
charge at the request of CEA was referred to the U. S. Conciliation Service,
and the respondents agreed to reinstate him with back pay on September 12,
1942 Within one-half hour of his return a group of CEA supporters met in the
plant cafeteria to protest his reinstatement. The resulting dispute was "ar-
bitrated," on September 15, at which time James H. Cannon reviewed the charges
against Armant. Several clays later Armant was notified that Cannon had con-
curred in the request of CEA, and that he should consider himself discharged.
On September 21, 1942, UE filed a petition for certification as the representa-
tive of the respondents' employees 30 A Decision and Direction of Election was
issued on December 31, 1942. The election was held on January 25, 1943, and
CEA again received a majority of the valid votes cast. On January 30, 1943,
UE filed objections alleging, in substance, that the respondents had illegally
assisted CEA prior to the election. At the same time UE filed formal charges,
alleging generally that the companies had violated Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the
Act. On March 18, 1943, the Regional Director notified UE of his refusal to issue
a complaint, and filed a Report on Objections which concluded that none of
the objections raised substantial or material issues. In a Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representatives, issued April 12, 1943, the Board overruled
the objections and certified CEA.
Thereafter, on May 5, 1943, the respondents and CEA executed a new agree-
ment, to be effective for 1 year or the duration of the war "whichever is longer,"
and indefinitely thereafter subject to termination on 30 days' notice. The
respondents again recognized "the principle of the closed shop," and agreed
that all persons hired after the execution of the agreement would have to
become and remain members of CEA, and authorize the check-off of their union
dues, "as a condition of continuous employment." Check-off arrangements for
persons employed prior to the execution of the agreement were to continue
on a "voluntary" basis. It was also expressly agreed that CEA might use the
cafeteria "for department and shift meetings."
c The relationship between the respondents and CEA after the Board-ordered
election
In the spring of 1943,'shortly after the Board-ordered election already noted,
Caffarel, who was then president of CEA, saw James H. Cannon in the office
of the latter. Cannon notified Caffarel that he did not approve of the retainer
20 Louis LaGuerre Drouet, janitor foreman of the respondent Corporation , was an active
member of the CEA board at the time, and participated in the investigation.
'0 Thereafter, on September 26, UE filed charges al leging that CEA was company-
dominated, and that the discharges of George and Armant had been effected with dis-
ciiminatory intent. These charges were withdrawn without prejudice on October 15, 1942,
apparently to enable the Board to proceed with the representation case.
On November 25, 1942, CEA filed charges alleging that the Corporation was assisting
UE in its organizational campaign. These charges were fully investigated, and the
Regional Director refused to issue a complaint. His action was sustained by the Board
on December 26, 1942.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Joseph Lewis as CEA attorney, since the fees for this service were being
paid by the employees At the next CEA board meeting, Business Agent Richard
Franklin" and John Gibson, a member of the board, sponsored a move to dismiss
Lewis and the board approved the motion.
On May 26, 1943, the executive board of the UE local Which had been organized
at the respondent's plant distributed an open letter to the employees reaffirming
their intention not to "loin" CEA The charges made by several members of
CEA as a result of this action led to a formal hearing by that organization,
which the UE supporters did not attend. On June 12, 1943, five of the eight
employees who had signed the open letter were advised that they had been
discharged at the request of CEA. Two other employees who had not been
involved in the circulation of the open letter were discharged on the same
date.32
In the fall of the year, according to Rachel McBurnie, the shop stewards of
CEA on her shift held a meeting in the plant cafeteria on company time, at
which she was elected Chief Steward for that shift She lost no pay for the
time consumed by the meeting" Thereafter, in May 1944, she was a successful
candidate for the board of directors of CEA Shortly betore she was sworn in,
John Gibson, then president of CEA, took her to see Robert Cannon. In
the course of a general conversation about her new position, Gibson inquired
if she had been elected to vote for the ouster of Richard Franklin as business
agent. Despite her denial, Robert Cannon interposed the comment that the
Corporation and CEA got on well together, and that Franklin had made a good
business agent.
On the following day the newly elected board of directors held its first meet-
ing. One of the new directors proposed a motion for the ouster of Franklin,
which carried by a vote of four to three. Gibson refused to accept the vote, how-
ever, and called for a reterendum by the membership Although the election
which followed was originally planned as a referendum on the ouster of Franklin,
the ballots stated the issue as a choice between the retention of Franklin and
Gibson, or McBurnie and the other directors who had voted for the ouster. Gibson
and Franklin received a vote of confidence by the margin of 334 to 3S0 votes.
McBurnie testified credibly, and we find, that the election was held in the
plant cafeteria from 7: 00 a. in. to S : 30 p. in, the ballot box being guarded by an
employee and one of the respondent's guards, who was wearing a business suit
on that occasion. The votes were counted in the cafeteria, after which the guard
and Cal Cannon, manager of the cafeteria, took the ballots into the cafeteria
office.34
"The circumstances under which Franklin achieved this position are set forth below.
32 Louis Tournie , who was named in the complaint as the eighth person discharged on
this date , appears to have resigned his employment voluntarily on June 18
33 Although there is no evidence that supervisory employees of the respondents were
aware of the meeting in question , it is clear that meetings of the CEA executive board on
company time and property were permitted by the respondents . At least one such meeting
was reported in the " CEA News ." No witness for the respondent denied that employees
were paid for time spent in such meetings . See footnote 34, infra.
34 The testimony of McBurnie and other witnesses with respect to CEA elections estab-
lishes that some of the employees who spent time away from work because of the elections
suffered no deduction in pay. On the occasion discussed above, McBurnie ' s foreman gave
her permission to attend the count , and she suffered no loss of pay as a result Robert
Cannon testified that the respondents permitted CEA to use the cafeteria for elections,
and that these elections may have been held during working horns, but that it was not
the intention of the respondents to pay employees for time spent away from work on
election days. This testimony cannot be considered an express denial of the other evidence
on this issue, and we find , in accordance with a preponderance of the evidence, that
employees weie paid for time spent aiiay from work on these occasions.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1079
The record establishes that the respondents at all times permitted employee
representatives of CEA to attend to the affairs of that organization on company
time, without loss of pay. Caffarel, who had several offices in CEA, testified cred-
ibly he had often left the plant on business for that organization,35 and that meet-
ings of the CEA board were frequently held on company time. He stated that
he was never aware of any deduction from his pay as a result of these ab-
sences from his work. John Gibson, who was elected president of the organiza-
tion early in 1944, testified, and we find, that he had made arrangements through
Superintendent Hawkinson whereby he, as president of CEA, could take time off
from work without loss of pay, to transact CEA business. This arrangement,
which permitted him to absent himself for not more than 2 hours in any 1 day,
was made in the latter part of 1944. Gibson testified credibly that he handled
CEA business during working hours 4 or 5 days per week ; that he always secured
the permission of his foreman to leave the plant, but never clocked out; and that
this practice was followed by the other officers as well, until the organization was
disbanded under circumstances hereinafter noted, in April 1945. Gibson con-
tended that the practice described was sanctioned by Section X of the agreement
of May 5, 1943. The section cited, however, merely allows members of the CEA
board of directors and business agents to appear on company property or leave
it during working hours whenever such action is required by the business of the
Association. There appears to be no warrant in the section cited for paying
employees at regular rates of pay for time spent away from work, and we find that
these arrangements were made pursuant to agreements arrived at independently
of the contractual provision cited 3u
Factional differences within CEA, related generally to those already men-
tioned, ultimately led to several additional discharges in 1944. After a formal
hearing on July 15 and 22, 1944, Florence Maynard and Herbert Caffarel were
expelled from CEA for "spreading false reports" On July 29, 1944, Maynard
and Caffarel were informed that CEA had demanded their discharge.' Shortly
thereafter, on August 4, 1944, the original charges in this consolidated proceeding
were filed by the IAM, acting on behalf of the two dischargees.3T On January 16,
1945, UE filed charges alleging that the respondents had violated Sections 8 (1),
(2), and (3) of the Act.
d The present status of GEA
In identical letters dated March 16 and April 4, 1945, CEA notified the re-
spondents that its members had voted, on March 13, to become members of the
Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local 75, and that the latter organi-
zation had become the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of the
respondents The letters stated that CEA had been dissolved by its board of
36 Caffarel was president of CEA from November 1942 to March 1943. Shortly after his
election to this office he received a "permanent" pass from Superintendent Hawkinson,
which permitted him to enter and leave the plant at will. During his subsequent term
as treasurer , from March to December 1943 , he frequently transacted business at the bank
for CEA, without loss of pay. According to Caffarel , his foreman was always advised
when he left work for this reason. Caffarel's testimony is credited.
36 Robert Cannon, admitting that officers of the CEA had frequently absented themselves
from work under these circumstances , testified that absence from work without loss of
pay was peimitted by the contract only for grievance committee members nnorking on
grievances of which the respondents had been officially notified. No clause of the agreement
was cited in support of this view See Metal Mouldings Corporation, 39 N L. R B. 107,
117-118, enforced (C C. A 6), April 6, 1943, unreported.
37 The charges were subsequently amended to allege that Louis LaGuerre Drouet had
been disci iminatorily discharged on April 15, 1944. The circumstances of Drouet's dis-
missal will be discussed hereinafter
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directors, requested that the current dues check be made payable to M E. S, A.,'°
and asked the respondents to meet the officers of Local 75 to negotiate a new
agreement. The respondents met with the officers of M. E. S. A. as suggested, and
executed a new agreement on April 10, 1945 " On April 23, however, Matt Smith,
National Secretary of M. E. S. A., wired the Company that the contract was
cancelled. The telegram was read over the public address system and copies
were posted on the bulletin boards in the plant. James H Cannon testified that
he had been advised CEA was no longer active but that he had received no official
notice of its dissolution ; and counsel for the respondents stated that the organi-
zation was taking steps to dissolve, but that the process had not been completed90
The respondents have made no public statement about the present status of their
contract with CEA, and Robert Cannon testified that the respondents are actually
unable to determine whether they now have one contract, two contracts, or none.
Concluding Findings
1. The effect of the earlier Board proceedings
The respondents moved at the healing to dismiss the consolidated complaint
upon the ground that all the issues involved in this proceeding as to company
domination, coercion of employees, and discharges "have heretofore been heard
and determined by the Board," and upon the further and related ground that all
the facts upon which the present proceeding is based were known to the Board
and the charging unions at the time of the two elections already noted. In effect,
the respondents contend that the action of this Board in the earlier proceedings,
and the disposition made of objections to the elections and incidental unfair labor
practice charges filed, precludes the present consideration of events which pre-
ceded the most recent certification of CEA.
A contention of this nature, although couched in terms of estoppel and res
judicata, is addressed essentially to the administrative discretion of the Board,
for it is well settled that representation proceedings, whether or not they culmi-
nate in the certification of a bargaining representative, neither estop the Board
from subsequently proceeding with respect to charges of unfair labor prac-
tices alleged to have occurred prior thereto, nor are res judicata of such
charges.41 It is equally clear that the failure of the Regional Director to act
H° Robert Cannon testified without contradiction , and we find , that Don Schloeder, then
secretary of CEA, had asked the respondents to check off dues for the month of March
in the usual fashion and remit a check for the amount involved to M E. S. A. The dues
of the respondents ' employees had already been checked off, but the respondents have with-
held the sum involved , and Cannon stated that it would be refunded to the employees, if
this had not been done already as of the date of the hearing James H. Cannon, who
confirmed this statement , added that he did not know whether the employees have been
told about the refund.
19 This contract was to be effective for a period of 1 year It contained no 30-day
termination clause, but provided that it might be renewed for 1 year by mutual consent.
40 Robert Cannon stated that the respondents had received a statement of dissolution
from CEA, and a copy of the notice sent by that organization to the State Corporation
Commissioner -
41 Wallace Corporation v N L. R B., 323 U. S 248 , affirming 141 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 4),
enforcing 50 N. L. R . B. 138; see also Warehousemen's Union, Local 117 v . N. L. R. B , 121
F. (2d) 84 , 92-94 (App. D. C.), cert. denied 314 U. S. 674 ; Utah Copper Company v.
N L. R B., 139 F. ( 2d) 788 , 791 (C C. A 10), cert denied 322 U. S. 731, N. L R B v.
Swift & Company, 127 F ( 2d) 30, 31 (C. C A. 6) ; N L. R B v. Standard Oil Company,
142 F. ( 2d) 676 (C. C. A 6 ), enforcing with modifications 47 N. L. R. B 517, cert . denied
323 U. S. 791 ; N. L. It. B. v. Stone, 125 F. ( 2d) 752 , 756-757 (C. C A. 7), cert. denied
317 U. S. 649. Cf. N. L. R. B. V. Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 135 P. (2d) 15, 18,
23 (C. C. A. 3).
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1081
affirmatively on the objections of UE in the two election cases or to issue a com-
plaint upon the charges later filed, cannot serve to preclude the Board from a con-
sideration of the respondents' antecedent conduct. Non-action by the Regional
Director provides no indication of a ruling upon the merits n
In considering the respondent's plea to our discretion in the instant case,
however, we are mindful of the fact that our earlier certification of CEA was
accompanied by the administrative dismissal of unfair labor practice charges
involving that organization. If, thereafter, the respondents had not engaged
in further unfair labor practices , or had engaged merely in isolated acts of
assistance , the combination of a certification and the administrative dismissal
of charges might well have convinced us that sound administrative practice
required us to disregard the antecedent conduct of the respondents, and to
base our findings in the present case entirely upon the events which followed the
certification43 The record establishes, however, that the respondents, after the
certification , continued to engage in unfair labor practices which constituted
a continuation or resumption of the unfair labor practices that preceded the
Board action relied upon by the respondents as a bar It is clear, and we find,
as discussed more fully below, that the respondents, following the Board certi-
fication in 1943, continued improperly to interfere with the administration of
CEA and to contribute support thereto. We aie particularly impressed, in this
connection, with such indicia of support as the freedom permitted CEA in
holding directors' meetings and elections on company time and property, and
the permission given employee officers of that organization to transact CEA
business on company time without loss of pay. Such conduct on part of the
respondents reveals a settled purpose to prevent CEA from becoming a truly
independent representative of the employees, and to render it incapable of en-
gaging in the free collective bargaining contemplated by the Act. We find that
the unfair labor practices of the respondents subsequent to our 1943 certifica-
tion are such as to require an examination of the respondents ' entire course of
conduct, and the entire history of their relationship with CEA, in order to
effectuate the purposes of the Act, to determine an appropriate remedy, and
thereby to protect employees from unfair labor practices 44
42N L. R. B. v. T . W. Phillips Gas and Oil Company, 141 F. ( 2d) 329 (C. C. A. 3) ;
N. L. R B. v. Baltimore Transit Co ., 140 F. ( 2d) 51 (C. C. A. 4) ; Republic Steel Corpora-
tion, 62 N. L . R. B 1008; Standard Oil Company , et al., 43 N. L. R B 32, Sussex Dye
and Paint Works , 34 N L. R. B. 625 ; Ingram Manufacturing Company , 5 N. L. R. B. 908.
43 See Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company, 11 N. L. R. B. 885 ; Godchaux Sugars, Inc.,
12 N. L R. B. 568 ; Hope Webbing Company, 14 N. L. R. B. 55 ; Wickwire Brothers, 16
N. L. R. B. 316; Strombeig Carlson Telephone Manufacturing Company, 18 N. L R. B.
526; Corn Products Refining Company , 22 N. L. R. B 824 ; Tulsa Boiler and Machinery
Company, 23 N. L R B 846 ; American Bakeries Company, 51 N. L. R B. 937; cf . Interlake
Iron Corporation, 33 N. L. R. B. 613.
44 In cases involving settlements of unfair labor practice charges approved by Board
agents, or consent election agreements intended to settle prior charges, this Board has con-
sistently held that it will disregard such agreements and consider the employer 's entire
course. of conduct , both before and after execution of the agreement , where subsequent
events show that the settlement or other adjustment is not accomplishing its intended
purpose because the employer has violated or continues to violate the Act after signing the
agreement , Ingrain Manufacturing Company, 5 N. L R B . 908; Picker X-Ray Corporation,
Waite Manufacturing Division, Inc, 12 N. L. R. B. 1384; Chambers Corporation, 21
N L R B 808 ; Ohio Valley Bus Company, 38 N. L . R. B. 838 ; Sun Shipbuilding and
Drydock Company, 38 N L R. B 234; Gilfellan Brothers, The, 53 N L R. B 574, Poloron
Products , Inc, 64 N. L R . B. 1358 See also McKesson and Robbins , Inc., et al., 19
N L. R B 778, affirmed 121 F. (2d) 84, 92-94 (App. D. C., cert. den 314 U. S 674;
Wilson & Co ., Inc, 31 N. L. R . B. 440, enforced 126 F. ( 2d) 114 (C. C. A. 7), cert. den. 316
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We, therefore, find the motion of the respondents for dismissal of the con-
solidated proceeding to be without merit, and it is hereby denied.
2. The domination and support of employee organizations ; the accompanying
interference, restraint, and coercion
Upon the entire record, as summarized herein, we find that the respondents
have continuously displayed an attitude of opposition to the self-organization
of their employees, from the date of the earliest efforts made in that direction
to the date of the hearing in the instant case. Before the execution of the
contract with the IAM in 1938, James H. Cannon openly displayed his hostility
to that organization, and Superintendent Cromwell attempted surveillance of
organizational meetings. In 1941, shortly after UE initiated its campaign
among the respondents' employees, James H Cannon suggested the formation
of the Contact Committee, a labor organization which, as we have found above,
was dominated, interfered with and supported by the respondents. With respect
to the Cannon Employees Recreation Association and CEA, it is clear, and we
find, that CEA was the successor of CERA, that both organizations received
assistance from the respondents in the course of their formation, and that the
respondents continued to interfere with the administration of CEA and to support
that organization throughout the entire period in which it was active as the
representative of their employees.
At the very outset of Mandella's efforts to organize CERA, he received the
active support of Superintendent Cromwell, who advised Employee Alvin George
that the organization would be a "company union" and urged him to join. The
first, and only, election of officers in CERA was held on company time and prop-
erty, with the apparent acquiescence of Superintendent Cromwell. Subsequent
meetings of its board of directors were attended by an attorney who later
became the attorney for CEA. Representatives of the organization openly
solicited members among the employees of the respondents without restriction
as to time or place The record contains no indication that CERA ever func-
tioned as a recreational or athletic club, but is replete with statements by Ned
Mandella to the effect that it had been organized with the knowledge and con-
sent of management as the forerunner of a labor organization designed "to
keep out the CIO."
That organization, the Cannon Employees Association, was formed on Feb-
ruary 28, 1:1,41, and took over the membership of CERA in April of that year,
when the latter organization voted to change its name and to continue opera-
tions under the charter previously secured for CEA. With two exceptions, the
officers of CERA retained their position in the new organization without
further election Membership solicitation on behalf of CEA continued to occur
on company time and property with the knowledge and acquiescence of man-
U S 699, Hicks Body Company, 33 N L It. B 858, Norman H Stone, et al, d/b/a J. H.
Stone and Sons, 33 N L R B. 1014, affirmed 125 F (2d) 752, 756-757 (C C A 7)_ cert.
den 317 U. S 649; Hondaille-Heishey Corporation, 42 N L It. B 713, Utah Copper
Company, et al, 47 N L It. B 757, affirmed 139 F. (2d) 788, 791 (C C A. 10), cert den.
322 U S. 731; Locomotive Finished Material Company, 52 N L. R B 922; American
Needlecrafts, Inc, 59 N L. R B 1384 ; Pacific Manifolding Book Co., Inc, ct al, 64
N L R. B. 1257 Our practice in this respect has been recognized by the courts as a
practice properly within the sphere of the Board's administrative discretion See Wallace
Corporation v. N. L R B., supra, at pp 241-242, Canyon Corporation v. N L R B ,
128 F (2d) 953, 955-956 (C C. A. 8) ; N. L R. B. v. Hawk and Back Co., Inc, 120 F.
(2d) 903, 905 (C. C. A 5).
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1083
agement officials and foremen," CERA membership cards being distributed to
new members until July 1941 This brief recital leaves no doubt as to the
line of successorship between CERA and CEA. The fact that the former
organization never functioned as a labor organization during its brief existence
is immaterial, when the record clearly discloses the intention of all parties to
use the ostensible objectives of CERA merely to mask the development of a
rival of UE for the allegiance of the respondents' employees.
The intention of the respondents is clearly revealed in the series of "open
letters" from James 11. Cannon which were distributed to the employees as
the contest between UE and CEA developed in the summer of 1941. Although
it is true that these letters contained no overt expressions of preference for
CEA, Cannon's open hostility to UE, and the fact that this organization was
singled out for persistent attack, provided a clear indication of his desires
with respect to self-organization of the employees. The respondents now con-
tend that the opinions expressed in these letters, and the manner of their
expression, represent a priviliged exeicise of the rights of free speech guaranteed
by the First Amendment to the Constitution. We find this contention to be
without merit. The statements already cited, and others of similar tenor con-
tained in the release of the respondents, represent a campaign obviously de-
signed to convince the employees that their best interests would be served
by allegiance to the "inside" organization which had been conceived with the
blessing of the respondents and nurtured with their support. We find that the
open letters of June 3, June 11, and June 25, and July 3, 1941, together with
the concurrent series of letters urging employee support of the Contact Com-
mittee, considered in their totality and in connection with other conduct dis-
cussed herein, exceeded the bounds of permissible free expression, and formed
an integral part of a coercive course of conduct calculated to interfere with,
restrain, and intimidate employees in the exercise of their right to self- organi-
zation.
Further evidence of the respondents' position in the contest between UE and
CEA is found in the conduct of its supervisory officials under the "no-solicitation"
rule promulgated in August 1941. While the rule may have been adopted to
deal with the "situation" created by the pre-election activities of these- two
organizations, the evidence establishes that its application was discriminatory.
Several employees who had solicited for CEA on company time and property
testified that their activities had not been observed or overheard by foremen.
It is clear, however, from the testimony of George and Monjar, that responsible
supervisory officials of the respondents were fully aware of these activities
by CEA adherents, and that no effective measures were taken to enforce the
rule as to them 96 In Wiley's case, however, the superintendent acted with
'a We have found herein that leadmen were active on behalf of CEA. However , in view
of our other findings , summarized herein, as to the knowledge of responsible management
representatives with respect to the aims and activities of CEA, we find it unnecessaiy to
pass upon the question of the respondents ' liability for the acts of leadmen . Cf Missis-
sippi Valley Sti natural Steel Company, 94 N L R 1; 7S Thus, General Supeimtendent
Hawkinson, who was toolrooni foreman during 1941, testified that he had requested
Superintendent Cromwell to tiansfer Mandella to another department because the latter
spent too much time on activities outside his regular duties Hawkinson denied that
lie had been aware of the e-eict nature of Mlaudella's activities However, whether
Hawkinson*,; denial is credited or rejected, it is clear that Superintendent Cromwell was
fully informed on the matter in issue
46In this connection, we note particularly the statements of Plant Superintendent
Cromwell and Foreman Glenn ,McClung -
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a promptitude which indicated clearly his intention to enforce the rule against
adherents of UE. Counteivaiiing evidence tending to show impartial enforce-
ment of the rule has not been offered by the respondents. CEA literature
posted on the Corporation's time clock in full view of a plant guard was per-
mitted to remain undisturbed in the days immediately preceding the election
of September 9, 1941, while the efforts of UE to achieve comparable distribu-
tion of its appeal by means of a sound truck appear to have been effectively
"jammed" by blasts of sound from loud speakers on the roof of the respondents'
plant. By this and other means noted herein, the respondents continued to
oppose UE and thereby contributed effective support to CEA up to the very
date of the election.
Within a month of the election, after a short period of negotiation, the re-
spondents executed their first agreement with CEA We regard it as particu-
larly significant that this agreement provided for a union shop, despite the
previous public announcement of James H. Cannon that he would make no such
agreement with an "outside" organization There is no evidence that the
respondents opposed the inclusion of a union security clause in their agreement
with CEA, and we find that the existence of this provision was intended to,
and did, provide a readily available and superficially plausible means for dis-
posing of employees who were disinclined to accept the bargaining agent foisted
upon them by the respondents.
The discharges of George and Armant, discussed more fully hereinafter, the
active participation of Superintendent Cromwell and Foreman Drouet therein,
and the discriminatory treatment of Monjar gave additional support to CEA dur-
ing the term of its initial contract.
When UE renewed its organization campaign in 1942, James H Cannon renewed
his attacks on the organization, vilified its leadership, and praised CEA. We find
that the open letters of May 29, June 19, November 3, and November 11, 1942, dis-
tributed by the respondents were intended to, and did, constitute an open espousal
of CEA as the bargaining representative of the employees. In the context of their
earlier activities, the assistance given to the Contact Committee, CERA; and
CEA, and the discharges previously made, we find that the open partisanship of
the respondents in the face of a pending question of representation constituted
illegal intervention in the determination of that question, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced the employees, and contributed effective support to the
organization chosen by the respondents as their candidate in the anticipated
election.
The close' relationship between the respondents and CEA did not cease after
the Board election The respondents continued, as before, to permit CEA elec-
tions on company time and property without taking adequate steps to prevent em-
ployees involved therein from receiving pay for time spent away from work on
business related to the election. The CEA board of directors was also permitted
to hold meetings on company time and property. On two occasions set forth
above, the Cannons intervened to influence the action of the CEA board of direc-
tors on matters related to the internal affairs of that organization. Officers of
CEA were expressly permitted freedom of movement on the respondents' premises
during working hours for the discharge of union business, without deduction from
their pay, despite the absence of any contractual provision for such arrangements.
The totality of the conduct summarized herein as occurring after the Board-
ordered election constitutes, as previously noted, a "continuation of resumption"
of the respondents earlier unfair labor practices.
Upon the record as a whole, we find that the respondents, by the course of
conduct described above, have, since on or about January 1, 1941, dominated
CAN NON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1085
and interfered with the formation of CERA and the Cannon Employees Associa-
tion, interfered with the administration of the Cannon Employees Association
and contributed financial and other support thereto, and have interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discharges
Gus Palm
Louis LaGuerre Drouet testified that on one occasion in the fall of 1941, when
lie discussed the "union situation" with Superintendent Cromwell in the presence
of Howard Jorgensen , secretary of the latter , Cromwell said that he was "laying"
for Gus Palm and had Jorgensen watching him. According to Drouet, Cromwell
cited the company rule forbidding workers to wash up before the end of their
shift, and stated that he intended to apply the rule to all UE supporters. Shortly
after Palm's discharge, on December 5, 1941,' Cromwell is reported to have told
Drouet that he had been able to dismiss Palm for a violation of the aforesaid
rule, and expected to get rid of other UE adherents in the same fashion. The
record contains no indication that Palm was discharged after any formal request
by CEA, or that the provisions of the existing agreement with respect to dis-
charges had any bearing on his dismissal.
Drouet's testimony in this connection, however, stands without corroboration
in the iecoid Foi the reasons previously cited, we find it to be unworthy of
credence. On these grounds, and for the further reason that all available testi-
mony with respect to Palm's discharge rests upon uncorroborated hearsay, we
make no finding that the termination of his employment was discriminatory.
Alvin L. George
The testimony of George with respect to his discharge, and the events which
preceded it, is corroborated by two witnesses, and stands substantially unchal-
lenged by the respondents We find it to be credible. In substance, the evidence
establishes that George , who had been employed by the Company in 1938, joined
UE early in 1941. Together with Ivan Jensen, a fellow employee, he made a
radio speech in support of its campaign at the respondents' plant on August 26 of
that year. Three or 4 days later he and Jensen were dismissed by Ray Cromwell
"for making the radio broadcast " On the following Sunday, UE members at the
plant voted to strike in protest against the discharge of George Jensen, and
several other UE stewards.
- The strike lasted 1 day, and was settled by an agreement to restore the status
quo pending a consent election and arbitration of the discharges, as already
noted George and Jensen returned to work, and the arbitration hearing agreed
upon as part of the settlement was held 1 week later. The arbitrators ordered
George, Jensen, and another employee to apologize to James H. Cannon for
statements they had made about him, and placed all three on probation for 45
days. This award was accepted by the employees .48
Shortly after the execution of the first agreement between the respondents
and CEA, George was directed by Cromwell to join the newly recognized organi-
zation. He, and several other employees who had received similar instructions,
4' The complaint alleges that Palm was dismissed on December 5, 1942, but the record
shows that the discharge occurred in 1941. The date of the discharge is properly set
forth in the amended charges of UE
48 George stated, and we find, that Cromwell , upon being advised of the award , remarked
that lie would "get" George before the 45 days had passed.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD
joined ."a On an unspecified date in January, 1942, while at lunch in the plant cafe-
teria, George was questioned by Cromwell regarding his opinion of Harry Bridges
and another leader of the CIO. George testified credibly and without contradic-
tion that he expressed a favorable opinion, and that Cromwell "got mad and
said we would all get our heads cut off some day." Sometime thereafter, in
February 1942, John Gibson, then chairman of the CEA grievance committee,
told George about an alleged "plot" that officials of CEA were concocting to
request the discharge of Elsie Monjar, another UE supporter. George com-
municated this information to Monjar . Within a few days, Monjar was called
away from her work by Andrew Bereznak, vice-president of CEA, and Peter
Vitale, a member of its board of directors. They took her to Superintendent
Cromwell's office and accused her, in the presence of Cromwell and his secretary,
of spreading false rumors with respect to her allegedly imminent discharge.
Cromwell questioned her about the accusation and she identified George as the
source of the report. George was called in and questioned by Cromwell. He
demanded a hearing, and was told that one would be held on the following clay.
At the hearing, which was held in the plant conference room, Monjar testified
before Plant Superintendent Cromwell and the CEA board of directors regarding
her conversation with George. He was thereupon forinally charged with a
violation of the CEA bylaws and questioned with respect to the conversation.
His identification of Gibson as the source of the report was denied by Gibson
and the hearing was closed Within a week he was dismissed by Cromwell, "for
spreading false rumors " He has not been employed by the respondent since
March 4, 1942'°
It is clear that the "hearing" which was accorded Geoige cannot be considered
a formal trial. In any event, the record contains no evidence that he was ex-
pelled from CEA because of the charges presented at this meeting, and there is no
indication that CEA requested his dismissal. We conclude, therefore, that
George was discharged by the Corporation for an alleged violation of its pub-
lished rule against the "spreading of false reports." While the promulgation
and enforcement of a rule such as the one now under discussion appears to be
within the permissible limits of managerial discretion, we find it unnecessaly
to pass upon this question The application of the rule to George, we find, was
intended to inhibit concerted activity on behalf of UE, and to support CEA
thereby. In effect, the rule of the respondents was discriminatorily applied to
terminate the employment of a UE adherent, on a pretext supplied by CEA,
and in conformity with the obvious desires of that organization.
We find that Alvin L George was discharged on March 4, 1942, and was there-
after refused reinstatement because he had joined and assisted UE, and because
he had engaged in concerted activity with other employees for mutual aid and
protection ; that his discharge constituted discrimination in regard to his tenure
of employment ; and that by his discharge the respondents discouraged member-
ship in UE, encouraged membership in CEA, and interfered with, restrained,
"° George testified , without corroboration , that Robert Cannon was present in the offices
of CEA at the time that he applied for membership, and thereby lent the weight of his
endorsement to the organizational efforts of CEA. Cannon admitted a visit to the offices
of CEA but denied that he had gone there to assist the organization , and further denied
that he had been present when George ' s application was considered . We make no finding
herein that Cannon' s visit to the offices of CEA constituted support to that organization.
°0 The published rules of the Corporation state that the "spreading of false reports" shall
he considered a cause for discharge , and the bylaws of CEA provide , in substantially similar
language, for the expulsion of members guilty of such conduct . The record, however, does
not show whether George was dismissed upon the request of CEA, or pursuant to the
nublished rule of the Corporation.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1087
and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
Clarence Joseph Armant "
Armant became an employee of the Corporation in'May 1941. He joined UE
shortly thereafter, became a shop steward, and campaigned actively for the or-
ganization prior to the consent election of 1941. He continued to act as a; shop
steward for UE after the election, but became a member of CEA shortly before
that organization secured its contract with the respondents.62
In July of the following year Armant and Harmon Fellows, another UE stew-
ard, submitted evidence to the resident Army inspector which indicated that cer-
tain employees of the respondents had been required to pay fees to private
employment agencies in order to secure jobs with the respondents. Their presence
in the inspector's office was observed by an officer of CEA. Within a few days
both men received identical letters from CEA requesting them to appear before
its board of directors "due to unpleasant circumstances which have arisen " On
August 7, 1942, the date set for the meeting, Armant appeared at the office of
CEA. I ed Mandella read the charges against him, which referred specifically to
the incident involving the Army inspector and also included a general accusation
that he had made "false statements" about CEA. Louis LaGuerre Drouet, a
foreman, was then a member of the board of directors, and participated in the
inquiry." After some discussion , the board found him guilty of the charges and
asked him to resign. Similar action was taken with respect to Fellows, but the
men refused to relinquish their employment.
On August 17, 1942, CEA demanded the discharge of Armant and Fellows,
effective August 19. On or about the latter date Armant discovered that his
time card had been pulled, and was advised by Ned Mandella that he had been
discharged.6' He immediately communicated with a UE representative, who re-
ferred the matter to the U. S. Conciliation Service. About 2 weeks later, Armant
and Fellows were reinstated with back pay 66 The two men returned to work
on September 12, 1942 Within one-half hour of their return, Bereznak and
another member of the CEA board called the employees of Armant's department
to a meeting in the plant cafeteria. Mandella, who addressed the meeting, in-
formed Plant Superintendent Hawkinson, when the latter arrived, that the
employees would not return to work as long as Armant and Fellows were in the
plant. Robert Cannon, vice president and general manager of the Corporation,
advised the employees that Armant would be sent home at once, and the respond-
ents would "arbitrate" the question of his continued employment 56 Hawkinson
Si The recital which follows is based largely upon the testimony of Armant . Counsel
for the respondent attempted to impeach his credibility by securing an admission that he
had used another name many years before , while living in New Orleans. His use of the
fictitious name , however, was satisfactorily explained by the witness , as a means of en-
abling him to engage in professional boxing without the knowledge of his family. In
view of the fact that his testimony was substantially corroborated in several respects by a
witness for the Board and several supervisory officials of the respondent, we find it to be
entitled to full faith and credit.
62 Armant testified that Foreman Glenn McClung told him not to wear his UE steward's
badge after the election, and advised him to join CEA, before lie actually did so.
61 Drouet had been appointed General Service Supervisor on February 21, 1942
64 The record indicates that Armant was dismissed on August 21, by H. J. Brady,
operations manager for 'the respondents . Similar action with respect to Fellows appears
to have been taken on the same date.
In the meantime , on August 27, Armant had appeared on a radio program sponsored
by UE and had broadcast an account of his discharge.
66 The respondents made no deduction from the pay of the employees at the meeting
for the time during which they had absented themselves from work, according to Superin-
tendent Hawkinson
7177 i4-47-vol 71-70
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then explained the situation to Armant and requested that he leave the plant.
Armant refused. Within a few minutes he was called to Hawkinson's office,
where Robert Cannon explained that he would be paid for all time off, and that
his future status would be subject to arbitration. Armant insisted that he should
be permitted to address the employees, but Cannon refused to permit him to do
so, and finally ordered him from the plant. While these discussions were pro-
ceeding, the night superintendent explained the situation to Fellows, who left
the plant without objection.
When Armant and Fellows returned to the plant on September 15, 1942, they
proceeded at once to the conference room where the promised hearing was to be
held. James H Cannon represented the respondent. A representative of CEA
was present, together with a neighboring manufacturer.64 The charges against
Fellows were considered first. Armant was then called in, and the charges
against him were reviewed by James II Cannon. Armant testified without
.contradiction, and we find, that the proceedings were quite summary, that his
attempts to present a defense were interrupted, and that he was not permitted
to produce witnesses. The testimony of James H Cannon, however, indicates
that the hearing was not an arbitration proceeding. Section 29 of the contract
between the respondents and CEA provided for the dismissal of employees ex-
pelled from the union, if the employer did not dispute the propriety of such
action It is the contention of the respondents that the hearing accorded to
Armant and Fellows was held solely to afford Cannon an opportunity to review
the charges against both men and to make up his mild as to the propriety of the
action requested by the Union. Cannon (lid not concur in the request of CEA
with respect to Fellows, who was ultimately reinstated, but he did concur with
respect to Armant. The latter received no official notice of termination, but was
,subsequently advised by the U. S. Conciliator that Cannon had agreed to dis-
charge him. He has not been, employed by the respondents since the hearing.6'
Since Armant was dismissed at the request of CEA, an organization dominated
and supported by the respondents, and under the terms of its invalid agreement
with the respondents, the discharge cannot be regarded as privileged. Dis-
charges made at the request of a dominated organization necessarily discourage
membership in bona fide labor unions and constitute the most potent form of
encouragement and support to the organizations so dominated. Such discharges,
therefore, clearly fall within the bar of the statute. We find that the discharge
of Armant on September 15, 1942, and the later refusal of the respondents to
reinstate him constituted discrimination with respect to his tenure of employ-
ment to discourage membership in UE and encourage membership in CEA; and
that the respondents, by such discharge, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.
Joan Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary Sullivan, lllonna 117onnette Nye,
Louis Tournie, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, Clarence William Youngberg, Jr.
In January 1943, immediately before the Board-ordered election already noted,
UE chartered a separate local for employees of the respondents. Although CEA
67 Representatives of the U. S. Navy and the Conciliation Service were also present,
apparently as observers.
68 Armant subsequently brought suit in the State courts , alleging that his expulsion
from CEA and the subsequent discharge were improper. The Court ruled that his expul-
sion from CEA was void for lack of "due process ." It was further found that the respond-
ents had not conspired with CEA regarding his expulsion and discharge ; the suit was
therefore dismissed as to the respondents . Armant thereafter sought reinstatement, but
the Corporation refused to rehire him.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1089
was certified as a result of the election, the UE local continued to exist. On May
26, 1943, shortly after execution of the second contract between the respondents
and CEA, the executive board of the UE local published the open letter described
above, reaffirming their intention not to "join" CEA. Within a few days each of
the UE members who had signed the letter were served with a formal complaint,
which accused them of four distinct violations of the CEA bylaws. They were
also advised that they would cease to be members in good standing of CEA prior
to the scheduled date of the hearing on the aforesaid charges, and that failure to
cure their dues delinquency prior to the hearing would lead to "action . . . on
that score." 69
On June 8, seven of the eight employees who had signed the original manifesto
declared in a similar open letter that they would not attend the scheduled hear-
ing on that date, and on the following day the Corporation was advised by letter
that the seven employees in question had been expelled from CEA for infractions
of its bylaws.80 The letter also stated that the dues delinquency of these indi-
viduals constituted an additional cause for their expulsion, and that three addi-
tional employees had been expelled for the latter reason ' The organization
requested that the employees named be dismissed within 7 days as required by
its contract with the respondents. On June 12, 1943, the Corporation pulled the
time cards of seven employees,'-' in accordance with this request.
Upon arriving at the plant on the date in question, Nye and Evenstad dis-
covered that their time cards had been pulled. Together with Youngberg,
who had been advised of his dismissal while at work, they called upon Plant
Superintendent Hawkinson, who gave each of them a discharge slip which in-
dicated that they had been discharged "as per agreement." When Sullivan,
who had been absent on June 12, saw Hawkinson a few days later he informed
her that she had been discharged at the request of CEA for signing the open letter
of the UE executive board on May 26.63
None of the employees terminated on June 12 has-been employed by the respond-
ents since that date.
We find that the discharges now under discussion were effected upon the re-
quest of CEA, after the employees involved had been duly expelled from that
organization , and under the terms of its contract with the respondents. Since
69 On June 6, 1943, CEA notified the Corporation that 10 named employees were de-
linquent in their dues and demanded their discharge within 7 days Seven of the employees
named were members of the UE local 's executive board There is no evidence with respect
to the union activity of the other employees named in the letter.
60 These included Lawrence , Evenstad , Sullivan, Nye , Tournie, Youngberg , and Donald M.
McClellan.
These included Lish, Hunt , and Bernard Mackey.
The record contains no explanation for the failure of the Corporation to pull the cards
of McClelland and Mackey , the two expelled employees who are not named in the complaint.
It is assumed that they had adjusted their differences with CEA prior to June 12
During the course of the hearing counsel for the respondents stipulated that the testi-
mony of all eight alleged dischargees would be substantially identical with respect to the
circumstances of their separation from the respondents ' employ. A witness for the respond-
ent, however , testified subsequently that the time card of Louis Tournie had not been
pulled on June 12, and that he had in fact left the employ of the Corporation voluntarily
on June 1S The witness testified that he had secured this information from the pay-roll
records of the Corporation. Upon this state of the record it would appear that the prior
stipulation was erroneous insofai as it involved Tournie We credit the records of the
respondents in this connection and shall dismiss the consolidated complaint insofar as it
affects the employee in question.
83 There is some question in the record as to whether these discharges were expelled
from CEA for signing the open letter, or for their admitted dues delinquency, and whether
they were aware of the actual reason for their expulsion In view of the determination
proposed herein, there appeals to be no necessity to resolve these questions.
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we have found that the contracting union had been established and maintained
by unfair labor practices, it follows that the contract on which the respondents
relied was not protected under the terms of the proviso to Section 8 ( 3), and
that discharges made pursuant to its terms necessarily fall within the general
prohibition of the Section. We find that the respondents discharged Joan
Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary Sullivan, Monna Monnette Nye, Ada
Lish, Eloise Hunt, and Clarence William Youngberg, Jr., because of their activities
on behalf of UE and their opposition to and expulsion from CEA, and that,
by such discharges the respondents discriminated against them with respect
to their tenure of employment to discourage membership in UE and encourage
membership in CEA, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced the dischargees
and other employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act.
Louis LaGuerre Drouet
This employee, who had been a janitor foreman in the employ of the Cor-
poration prior to a period of service with the U. S. Navy, returned on February
29, 1944, after his medical discharge. He was offered employment as a
janitor leadman at his previous rate of pay, and accepted the position. After 11/2
months on the job, Drouet was discharged on April 15, 1944.
Drouet testified, in substance, that he had used company typewriters and
other equipment dining working hours to cut stencils and issue mimeographed
bulletins which urged the respondents' employees to join a CIO or AFL union
rather than one which was company dominated. His supervisor, John Labash,
is alleged to have found an imperfect copy of a previous bulletin ; and Drouet
stated that Labash confronted him as he was typing the stencil for a new
bulletin and accused him of using company equipment "to hurt the company "
Labash is also alleged to have accused Drouet of inefficiency and neglect of duty.
Drouet testified that he was finally ejected from the premises by a guard on
orders from Labash He has not worked for the respondents since that date.
As in the case of his testimony with respect to Palm's discharge, Drouet's
testimony about the circumstances under which his own employment was termi-
nated stands without corroboration. For the reasons already noted, and in the
absence of corroborative evidence, we find the record insufficient to support a
finding that the discharge of Drouet was discriminatory.
Florence Maynard and Herbert L. Caffarel
In November 1942, when Caffarel was elected to the CEA board and became
president of the organization, CEA secured the services of Richard Franklin as
its publicity director ; and in March of the following year he became the full-
time business agent of the organization. At approximately the same time Flor-
ence Maynard was designated as president and Herbert Caffarel became its
treasurer. In December 1943 John Gibson became president of the organization ;
Maynard was elected to a minor office; and Caffarel failed to secure reelection.
According to his testimony, he became convinced shortly thereafter that the
policies of Gibson and Franklin were detrimental to the best interests of the
organization. In the CEA election which was held in the spring of 1944, he
actively supported the candidacy of Rachel McBurnie for the board of directors,
in the hope that she would support the faction which opposed Franklin. The
factional struggle and the referendum which followed have been discussed above.
Gibson and Franklin, as already noted, received a vote of confidence. New elec-
tions were held shortly thereafter, and the members of the board who had opposed
Gibson and Franklin were replaced by other employees.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1091
On June 29, 1944, Caffarel received a letter from Gibson s; advising him that
he had been accused of "spreading false reports" which were detrimental to the
interests of CEA, and that he would be tried on these charges on July 1.,
He and the several other defendants n engaged counsel with the assistance of
the IAM. At the first session of the trial board on July 1, counsel requested
further particulars with respect to the charges. On July 10, 1944, the defendants
received a formal complaint and notice of a further hearing to be held on
July 15 As a result of the trial held on that date and July 22', Caffarel and
Maynard were expelled from membership in CEA, and the other defendants
were exonerated. On July 24, 1944, CEA formally requested the dismissal of
Maynard and Caffarel, and on July 29 the respondents complied
As in the case of the 1943 discharges already discussed, it appears upon the
record, and we find, that Maynard and Caffarel were discharged at the request
of CEA, after they had been duly expelled from that organization, and under
the terms of its contract with the respondents. For the reasons previously noted
in connection with the discharge of Joan Lawrence and the other employees dis-
missed simultaneously with her, we find that the aforesaid discharge of Maynard
and Caffarel constituted discrimination with respect to the tenure of their em-
ployment, encouraged membership in CEA, and interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the dischargees and other employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, tend to lead, and in this instance have led, to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since we find that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, we shall order that the respondents cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondents dominated, interfered with the ad-
ministration of, and contributed support to, the Contact Committee and the
Cannon Employees Association. The effects and consequences of the respondents'
domination, interference, and support of these organizations render each of them
incapable of serving the respondents' employees as a genuine collective bargaining
agency. Although the Contact Committee has ceased to function, it has never
been disestablished. The possibility exists, therefore, that it may be revived
under the same or another, name. In view of this possibility, we shall order the
respondents to withhold all recognition from the Contact Committee, by what-
I" The letter was delivered to Caffarel in the office of Frank Enna , his foreman.
^ Maynard , MeBurnie , and two other employees formerly members of the CEA board had
apparently received similar letters.
60 While proceedings before the trial board were pending, Maynard published an open
letter protesting the action taken by CEA , and stated , inter alia, that her resignation
had already been tendered to the Corporation for other reasons. There is no evidence to
indicate that Maynard did, in fact , resign. At the time of the hearing Maynard was a
member of the WAC and was not called as a witness . Caffarel testified , and we find, that
he and Manyard received their final checks at the same time , and that both were advised
by the personnel director that the Corporation had to dismiss them because of a request
by CEA, following their expulsion from that organization.
. 1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever name it may be known, if it should ever return to active existence as a
labor organization." The continued recognition of CEA as the bargaining
representative of the respondents' employees, also constitutes a continuing
obstacle to the free exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them in the
Act. Therefore, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to free the
employees from the effects of the respondents' unfair labor practices, we shall
order the respondents to withdraw all recognition from CEA as the representa-
tive of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and to completely disestablish that organiza-
tion as such representative
The agreements between the respondents' and CEA were an essential part of
the unfair labor practices, and constituted a means whereby the respondents have
used an employer-dominated labor organization to frustrate self-organization
and defeat genuine collective bargaining by their employees We find that the
respondents' agreements with CEA were, and are, invalid because they were
made as an element of assistance to a labor organization which was dominated
and interfered with by the respondents. Since the present agreement will
perpetuate the respondents' unlawful domination and assistance, we shall order
the respondents to cease and desist from giving effect to any agreement between
them and CEA as well as to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereto and any superseding agreements which may now be in force. Nothing
herein shall be taken, however, to require the respondents to vary or abandon
those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its relations with the em-
ployees themselves, which the respondents may have established in performance
of the agreement as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded.
We are also of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, the
respondents should be required, as a means of remedying the unfair labor prac-
tices found, to reimburse each employee for any amounts which have been
deducted from his or her. wages for dues or assessments in CEA, particularly
where, as here, such dues and assessments were withheld by the repondents in
accordance with the terms of an invalid closed-shop agreement." In this con-
nection, however, we note the earlier determination of the Board's Regional
Director, who refused to issue a complaint on March 18, 1943, on charges pre-
viously filed against the respondents under the Act. In the exercise of our
administrative discretion as to the remedy most appropriate in the circumstances,
we find that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act if our Order for the
reimbursement of dues or assessments deducted from the wages of employees
for CEA is limited to the period since February 15, 1945, the date on which
the complaint herein was issued, since upon the issuance of the complaint the
respondents were placed on notice that the prior administrative determination
was no longer in effect."A
It has also been found that the respondents discriminated as to the hire and
tenure of employment of Alvin L George and Clarence Joseph Armant because
they joined and assisted UE, opposed CEA, and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for mutual aid,and protection, thus causing them losses
in earnings. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the
respondents to offer each of these individuals immediate and complete reinstate-
0" Elizabeth Arden, Inc., 45 N. L R . B. 936 , enforced as modified 139 F. ( 2d) 488
(C C A 2) ; Carter Carburetor Corporation, 39 N L. R B. 1269 enforced 131 F. (2d)
927 (C C A 8).
68 Virginia Electric and Power Company, 44 N. L. R. B. 404 . 436 enforced 132 F (2d)
390 (C C A 4), affiimed 319 U S 533
69 N L R B v Baltimore Tiansit Company, 47 N L R. B. 109 enforced as modified
140 F (2d) 51 (C. C. A. 4).
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1093
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions,40 without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges. -
Ordinarily, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we would also order
the respondents to make whole the employees subjected to discrimination for the
loss of earnings suffered by each We note, however, that charges on behalf of
George and Armant were filed by UE on September 26, 1942, withdrawn on
October 15 of the same year and refiled on January 16, 1945, in the present
proceeding. We find that the original charges filed in 1942 were timely as to
Armant, but tardy as to George." No adequate explanation of the reason for
the delay as to George has been offered for our consideration. Upon this state
of the record, we shall order the respondents to make whole George by payment
to him of a sum limited to the amount which he would normally have earned
as wages during the period when the original charges filed on his behalf were
pending, and 'from the date when the charges were refiled to the date of the
respondents' offer of reinstatement 72 We shall order the respondents to make
whole Armant by payment to him of a sum limited to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his
discharge to the date on which the original charges filed on his behalf were
withdrawn, and from the date when the charges were refiled to the date of
the respondents' reinstatement offer" In each case our order shall provide for
the deduction of net earnings 74 by the particular discharges during the periods
in question.
In addition, we have found that the respondents discriminated as to the hire
and tenure of employment of Joan Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary
Sullivan, Monna 1\Ionnette Nye, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, Clarence William Young-
berg, Jr., Florence Maynard, and Herbert H. Caffarel, because they failed to main-
tain their membership in CEA, or because membership discriminatorily denied
them by CEA pursuant to the terms of an invalid agreement which required
membership in CEA as a condition of employment at the respondents' plant. In
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondents to offer
each of these individuals, with the exception of Florence Maynard, immediate
and complete reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. With re-
spect to Maynard, it appears that since her discharge she has entered the Women's
Army Corps of the United States Army and held such status at the time of the
hearing. If Maynard has since been discharged from the Women's Army Corps,
we shall order the respondents to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority
and other rights and privileges.47 If Maynard has not been discharged we shall
70 See Chase National Bank of the City of New York, 65 N L R B 827.
73 See N L. R. B. V. Walt Disney Productions, 146 F (2d) 44 (C C. A. 9) ; N. L R. B. v.
Mall Tool Company, 119 F (2d) 700, 702 (C C. A. 7)
72 Taylor Milling Corporation, 26 N L. R. B 424, 443 , see also the cases cited in foot-
note 71, supra
73 Taylor Milling Corporation, supra
71 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondents, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of
Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill TVorkeis Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B. 440 Monies received for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal or other work-relief projects shall
he considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R B , 311 U S 7
75 If at the time of the respondents' offer of reinstatement less than 90 days have elapsed
since Maynard's discharge from the women's Army Corps, the respondent shall hold their
offer of 7eiistatement open for a reasonable period, but in any event not less than the
remainder of the 90-day period following Maynard's discharge.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order the respondents, upon application by Maynard within ninety (90) days after
her discharge from the Women's Army Corps, to offer her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to her seniority and other rights and privileges.
- Our back pay order as to this employee, in whose behalf charges were timely
filed, will require the respondents to make whole Maynard for any loss of earnings
she has suffered or may suffer by reason of the respondents' discrimination against
her, by payment to her of a sum of money determined as follows : (1) In the event
that she has already been discharged from the Women's Army Corps she shall
be paid the amount which she normally would have earned as wages during the
periods from the date of her discharge by the respondents to the date upon which
she entered the armed forces, and from the date of her discharge to the date of the
respondents' reinstatement offer, less her net earnings during these periods; (2)
in the event that she has not yet been discharged from the Women's Army Corps,
she shall be paid the amount which she normally would have earned as wages
during the periods from the date of her discharge by the respondents to the date
on which she entered the armed forces, and from a date five (5) days after her
timely application for reinstatement, if any, to the date of the reinstatement offer
by the respondents, less her net earnings during these periods."
With respect to Herbert Caffarel, in whose behalf charges were also timely filed,
we shall order the respondents to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered because of the respondents' discrimination, by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his dismissal to the date of the reinstatement offer ordered herein, less his
net earnings during that period.
We find that charges on behalf of Joan Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad. Vivian
Mary Sullivan, Monna Monnette Nye, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, and Clarence Wil-
liam Youngberg, Jr, were not filed within a reasonable period after their dis-
charge, and that good cause for the delay has not been shown. We shall therefore
limit our back pay order as to these employees, and require the respondents to
make whole each of them for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the respond-
ents' discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount each would have earned as wages from the date on which charges were
filed in their behalf to the date of the reinstatement offer which we shall order the
respondents to make, less the net earnings of each during such period.
We expresssly reserve, however, the right to modify the reinstatement and
back-pay provisions of our order if such action is made necessary by a change of
conditions in the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may here-
after become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a specific
set of circumstances not now apparent"
The maintenance of a lineage of company-dominated and supported organi-
zations presents a ready and effective means of obstructing self-organization by
employees and the free choice of their own representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining. The respondents' long domination and interference with
two successive labor organizations, the contribution of support to them, the
,'The pi ovisnons of our order in this connection shall be taken to mean that the
respondents shall pay unmediately to Maynard that portion of hei net back pay accumu-
lated betweeen the date of the discrimination suffered by her and the date on which she
entered the women s Army Corps, without awaiting a final determination of the full amount
of the award herein The American Laundry Machaneiy Company, 45 N L R B 355,
enfoiced 13S F (2d) S8:) (C C A 2)
7 Matte, of Faiimoot Cieauieiq Company, 64 N L R B 824 , cf N. L R B v New
Fork 11erchandi,se Company, Inc, 134 F (2d) 949 (C C A 2) , International Union v.
Eagle Pichei Dlininq and Smelting Company, 65 Sup Ct 1166
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1095
repeated demonstrations of the respondents' unwillingness to recognize or bargain
collectively with "outside" organizations representing their employees, the cam-
paign of the respondents to defeat the organizational activities of UE-both before
and after the consent election of 1941-the successive discharges of George and
Armant to discourage membership in UE, the execution of closed-shop contracts
with CEM despite an earlier announcement that such arrangements would not
be made with any "outside" organization, the subsequent discharges of the UE
adherents, and Maynard and Caffarel to support CEA and maintain its effective-
ness as the chosen instrument of the respondents, ran the gamut of interference,
restraint, and coercion with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The
totality of the respondents' conduct, we find, reveals a settled purpose to defeat
self-organization and its objects among the employees by every available means,
in circumstances which contain "the threat of continuing and varying efforts to
attain the same end in the future ." " Because of the respondents ' unlawful
conduct and its underlying purpose we are convinced and find that the unfair
labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices
proscribed by the Act, and that a danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from the course of the respondents' conduct in the past. The pre-
ventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with
the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to
minimize strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, we shall order the respondents to cease and desist from in any
other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Since we have not found that the respondents discriminated against Gus
Palm, Louis Tournie, or Louis LaGuerre Drouet, in respect to the hire or tenure
of their employment, the complaint will be dismissed insofar at it alleges such
discrimination as to them.
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. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, International Association of Machinists,
Lodge 311, unaffiliated, and Cannon Employees Association, unaffiliated, are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 The Contact Committee, unaffiliated, which formerly represented the re-
spondents' employees, was a labor organization, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the
Contact Committee and the Cannon Employees Association, and by contributing
support to these organizations, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Alvin
L. George, Clarence Joseph Armant, Joan Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian
Mary Sullivan, Monna Monnette Ney, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, Clarence William
Youngberg, Jr, Florence Maynard, and Herbert H Caffarel, thereby discouraging
membership in United Electrical, Radio S. Machine Workers of America, C I. O.
and the International Association of Machinists, Lodge 311, and encouraging
membership in the Cannon Employees Association, the respondents have engaged
7"N L. R B v Express Publishing Company, 312 U S. 426, 438, N L R. B. v. Bradley
Lumber Company of Arkansas, 128 F. (2d) 768, 771 (C. C A 8) -
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act. -
5 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. By terminating the employment of Gus Palm, Louis Tournie, and Louis
LaGuerre Drouet, the respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 respondents, Cannon Manufacturing
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and James H. Cannon, an
individual doing business as the Cannon Electric Development Company, Los
Angeles, California, his agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Contact Com-
mittee or the Cannon Employees Association, or with the formation and admin-
istration of any other labor organization, and from contributing financial or
other support to the Contact Committee or the Cannon Employees Association, or
to any other labor organization of their employees.
(b) Recognizing the Cannon Employees' Association, or any successor thereto,
as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment ;
(c) Giving effect to any and all contracts, supplements thereto or modifications
thereof, or any superseding agreements, with the Cannon Employees' Association ;
(d) Encouraging membership in the Cannon Employees' Association, unaffili-
ated, or any other labor organization of their employees, and discouraging member-
ship in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations or the International Association of
Machinists, Lodge 311, unaffiliated, or any other labor organization of their em-
ployees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any employees,
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of their employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
or the International Association of Machinists, Lodge 311, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act: 79
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Cannon Employees' Asso-
ciation, as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing
79 The Board expressly reserves the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement pro-
visions of this order if made necessary by a change of conditions in the future, and to make
such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify
their application to a specific get of cncumstances not now apparent.
CANNON 1VIANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1097
with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and completely dis-
establish that organization as such representative ;
(b) Refrain from recognizing the Contact Committee as the representative of
any of their employees in the event that organization should ever return to active
existence ;
(c) Reimburse all employees, whose dues in the Cannon Employees Association
were checked off by the respondents, for the amounts thus deducted from their
wages since February 15, 1945;
(d) Offer to Alvin L. George, Clarence Joseph Armant, Joan Lawrence, Erma
A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary Sullivan, Monna Monnette Nye, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt,
Clarence William Youngberg, Jr., and Herbert H Caffarel, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions Bo without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(e) Offer to Florence Maynard immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or a substantially equivalent position, in the manner set forth above in the sec-
tion entitled "The remedy" ;
(f), Make whole Alvin L. George for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the respondents' discrimination against him, by the payment of a sum
of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
,luring the period from September 26 to October 15, 1942, when charges filed on
his behalf were pending, and from January 16, 1945, to the date of the respond-
ents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 81 during these periods.
(g) Make whole Clarence Joseph Armant for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him by the payment
Of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as
wages during the period from the date of his discharge to October 15, 1942,
when charges filed on his behalf were withdrawn, and from January 16, 1945, to
the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
these periods.
(h) Make whole Joan Lawrence, Erma A. Evenstad, Vivian Mary Sullivan,
donna Monnette Nye, Ada Lish, Eloise Hunt, and Clarence William Youngberg,
Jr, for any loss of pay which each of them may have suffered by reason of the
respondents' discrimination against them, by the payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount which each normally would have earned as
wages from the date on which charges were filed on their behalf to the date of
the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such
period ;
(1) Make whole Florence Maynard for any loss of pay she may have suffered
or may suffer by reason of the respondents' discrimination against her, by the
payment to her of a sum of money determined in the manner set forth above in
the section entitled "The remedy" ;
(j) Make whole Herbert H Caffarel for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him, by the payment of a
sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as
wages from July 29, 1944, the date of his discriminatory discharge, to the date
of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during this
period ;
(k) Post at their plants in Los Angeles, California, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of the said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, after being duly signed
80 See footnote TO. supra
81 See footnote 74, supra.
1098 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the respondents' representatives, shall be posted by the respondents immedi-
ately upon receipt thereot, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respond-
ents to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material ;
(1) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the (late of this Order, what steps the respondents
have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against Cannon Manufacturing Cor-
poration and James H. Cannon, an individual, doing business as the Cannon
Electric Development Company, be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the re-
spondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Gus Palm, Louis Tournie, and Louis LaGuerre Drouet.
Pursuant to Section 37 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, Series 3-as amended, effective November 25,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the issuance of Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law,
and Proposed Order, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25,
D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to these Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order, or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director. As further provided in said Section 37, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of these Proposed Findings, Conclu-
sions , and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and
in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE HERE BY DISESTABLISH Cannon Employees Association as the repre-
sentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any
successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it
WE WILL refrain from recognizing the Contact Committee as the repre-
sentative of any of our employees in the event that organization should
ever return to active existence.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all contracts, supplements thereto,
modifications thereof, or to any superseding agreements with the Cannon
Employees Association
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1099
them whole in accordance with the Order of the Board, for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Alvin L. George Ada Lish
Clarence Joseph Armant Eloise Hunt
Joan Lawrence Clarence William Youngberg, Jr.
Erma A. Evenstad Florence Maynard
Vivian Mary Sullivan Herbert H. Caffarel
Monna Monnette Nye
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, CIO, or
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 311, AFL, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain
members of either of these unions, or any other labor organization. We will
not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity
on behalf of any such labor organization.
CANNON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
By ---------------------------------------------
Representative Title
CANNON ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
By ---------------------------------------------
Representative Title
Dated -----------------------------
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.