Litchfield Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 545 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
FARM EQUIPMENT AND METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
In the Matter of LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
FARM EQUIPMENT AND METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. 18-C-1114 and 18-R-1145, respectively .Decided
August 27, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 15, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and had interfered with an election conducted by the Board among
the employees of the respondent for the purpose of determining
representatives for collective bargaining. The Trial Examiner rec-
ommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices and take certain affirmative action to remedy them, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He
further recommended in the Intermediate Report that the Union's
Objections to the election be sustained and that the results of the
election be set aside. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Oral argument
before the Board at Washington, D. C., was not requested, and none
was held. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond-
ent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found that, by the acts and statements of
management representatives, including statements of Leadman Louis
Busse, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced the
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act in violation of Section 8 (1) thereof. We agree with the finding
63 N. L. R. B., No. 86.
545
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Trial Examiner save as his finding is based upon Busse's state-
ments, set forth in the Intermediate Report. In view of our agree-
ment with the Trial Examiner, as set forth, we find it unnecessary
to determine whether Busse's statements may be attributed to the re-
spondent or whether, as the Trial Examiner found, Busse repre-
sented the respondent's management in the eyes of the employees.
We find that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by
the acts and statements of management representatives other than
those of Busse set forth in the Intermediate Report.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the speech of General Manager
Ed Jochumsen, delivered to the employees on January 19, 1945, con-
stituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8 (1) of the
Act, both in itself, independently, and as a component part of the
totality of the respondent's unfair labor practices. In agreement with
the Trial Examiner, we find that the speech, viewed as part of the
respondent's entire course of conduct, set forth in the Intermediate
Report, constitutes an unfair labor practice. However, we find it
unnecessary,to determine whether the speech, standing alone, is vio-
lative of the Act.
3. In the discussion of events leading to the December 26, 1944,
discharges of Robert Smith and Lois Smith, the Trial Examiner
stated in his Intermediate Report that, during the month of December
1944, General Foreman Grimes was present in a local tavern when
Union Organizer Ackerson asked employee Robert Smith to assist in
promoting a union party. In rejecting Grimes' denial that he was in
a position to overhear this conversation between Smith and Ackerson,
the Trial Examiner found that "As a result of Grimes' presence at
the incident, the respondent was appraised (sic) of the Smiths' inter-
est in and close association with the Union." We agree with this find-
ing of the Trial Examiner, and we further find that Grimes heard
the union organizer ask Smith to assist in promoting a union party.'
4. At the time of the hearing herein, employees Robert Smith and
Lois Smith had jobs, which they had obtained a few days after their
discriminatory discharge, in essential industry. The respondent and
the Smiths believed that regulations of the War Manpower Commis-
sion prohibiting the hiring of employees in essential industries in the
absence of certificates of availability or referral certificates, pre-
cluded reinstatement of the Smiths 2 Nevertheless, on January 30,
1 The Intermediate Report states that this incident took place during the month of
December 1944. The iecord indicates that the incident took place during the first week of
December 1944, prior to the discharges, and we so find.
2 war Manpower Commission regulations read as follows :
A new employee, who during the preceding 60-day period was engaged In an essential
or locally needed activity, may be hired only if such hiring would aid In the effective
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 547
1945, a little over a month after their discharge, the respondent
offered jobs to the Smiths, work to begin on February 10.3 Not hear-
ing from the Smiths, on February 17, 1945, the respondent sent them
separation notices stating that the Smiths had "quit without good
cause." On receipt of the separation notices, the Smiths replied,
stating, among other things, that they had not quit and that they
could not return-to work for the respondent because of War Manpower
Commission regulations. The respondent excepts to the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommendation of reinstatement with back pay for the
Smiths on the ground that the Smiths failed to accept the respondent's
offer of reinstatement and that, in any event, there should be no award
of back pay for the period subsequent to February 10.
It is clear, and we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding, that
the January 30 offers of jobs to the Smiths were not made in good
faith since the respondent had no intention of reinstating them.
Since the offers were not made in good faith and were not coupled
with an offer of back pay for interim losses, if any, they do not pre-
clude an order of reinstatement'- For the same reasons, and partic-
ularly, the absence of good faith in making the offers, we shall not
abate back pay.
The respondent also contends, inferentially, that the War Manpower
Commission regulations constitute a legal impediment to the rehiring
of the Smiths and that, therefore, an order of reinstatement, with
or without back pay, may not issue. However, the War Manpower
Commission regulations provide that a worker having reinstatement
rights under a Board order, must be referred, upon his request, to the
job to which he has such rights.5 Moreover, the War Manpower Com-
mission has recognized that compliance with a Board reinstatement,
order or the reinstatement of a discriminatorily discharged employee
pursuant to an informal settlement, does not interfere with War Man-
prosecution of the war . Such hiring shall be deemed to aid in the effective prosecution
of the war only if :
(1) Such individual is hired for work in an essential or locally needed activity or
for work to which he has been referred by the United States Employment Service, and
(2) Such individual presents a statement of availability from his last employment
in an essential or locally needed activity, or is referred by the United States Employ-
ment Service of the War Manpower Commission , or is hired with its consent, as
herein provided.
8 Referring to these offers , General Manager Jochumsen testified as follows :
Q. And you wrote that letter although you knew that they couldn't come back?
A. That's right.
Cf. Matter of Continental Box Co ., Inc, 19 N. L. R. B. 860.
8 W. M. C. Field Instruction, No. 502, August 5, 1944.
I. Referral and hire of workers with reemployment rights under collective bargain-
ing agreements and related requirements . A . . . a worker having reinstatement
rights under an order of the National Labor Relations Board must be referred, upon
his request , to the job to which he has such rights
662514-46-vol. 63-36
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
power Commission regulations.° Thus, the respondent is now and
was at all times free to reinstate the Smiths; its failure to do so is not
excused by any War Manpower Commission regulation.
5. In discussing the effect of the respondent's conduct upon the
results of the election of January 19, 1945, the Trial Examiner noted
that no more than 28 employees voted for the Union in the election
although, according to a report of a Board agent, dated November 6,
1944, 44 employees had signed applications for membership in the
Union. The membership applications were not submitted in evidence
at the hearing on the Objections to the election; and, in accordance
with Board practice, they were not subject to examination by the
respondent at the hearing in the representation case. We are of the
opinion that the membership applications do not constitute competent
evidence in support of the Objections; and, accordingly, we do not
rely upon the applications in arriving at our determination to sustain
the Objections and to set aside the election.
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, Litchfield Manufacturing
Company, Waterloo, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in United Farm Equipment and
Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization
of its employees, by discharging,, laying off, or refusing to reinstate
'or reemploy any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Farm Equipment
and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of
I In a letter to the Board , dated June 1, 1943 ( Manpower Reports, B. N. A., 30; 12C),
the General Counsel to the war Manpower Commission stated :
... The reinstatement of any employee pursuant to the authority of the National
Labor Relations Act would not be restricted by Regulation No. 4, since such reinstate-
ment would not be considered the "hiring of a new employee" as such terms were used
by the war Manpower Commission . This follows whether there has been a court order,
a Board order , or an informal settlement providing for the reinstatement of workers
who have been discriminatorily discharged , since in any of these cases the individual
remains an "employee" under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act.
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 549
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Robert Smith and Lois Smith immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole said Robert Smith and Lois Smith for any loss
of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount that he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination against
him to the date of the respondent' s offer of reinstatement , less his
net earnings during such period;
(c) Post at its Waterloo, Iowa, plant, copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report herein, marked Appendix A.7 Copies Of
said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eight-
eenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it 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 respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region
(Minneapolis, Minnesota) in writing, within ten (10) days from the
date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply
herewith; and
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the election of January 19,
1945, in Case No. 18-R-1145, and the results thereof, be, and they
hereby are, vacated and set aside.8
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stanley D. Kane, for the Board.
Swisher, Cohrt and Swisher, by Messrs. B. F. Swisher and L. J. Cohrt, of
Waterloo, Iowa, for the respondent.
Mr. B. C. Ackerson, of Waterloo, Iowa, for the Union.
7 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
8 When the Regional Director of the Eighteenth Region advises us that the time is appro-
priate, we shall direct that a new election be held.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, dated December 28, 1944,' the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), on January 19,
1945, conducted an election by secret ballot of the employees of Litchfield Manu-
facturing Company, Waterloo, Iowa, herein called the respondent, in the ap-
propriate unit" to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called
the Union, for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Union lost the election
46 to 28.s On January 23, the Union filed Objections to Conduct of Election and
on January 29, an Amendment thereto. On February 17, the Regional Director
issued and served upon the parties his Report on Objections recommending that
the Board direct a hearing thereon.
On January 29, 1945, the Union filed a charge alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act'
On February 26, 1945, the Board, finding that the Union's objections raised
substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, issued
and served upon the parties its Order Directing Hearing on Objections to Election
and Consolidating Cases by which it ordered a hearing in Case No. 18-R-1145 and
consolidated that case with Case No. 18-C-1114. Upon the charge in the latter
case, the Board, by its Regional Director, on March 9, 1945, issued its complaint
against the respondent alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by
notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union'
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) on December 26, 1944, discharged and thereafter refused
to reinstate and to make bona fide offers of reinstatement to Robert Smith and
Lois Smith, because of their union membership and activities ; (2) since October 1,
1944, had advised, urged, and warned its employees against membership in or
activities on behalf of the Union and to vote against it at the election of January 19,
1945; threatened them that in the event the Union won the election the respondent
might cease operation, reduce their hours and compensation, and lose contracts,
machinery, and raw materials, all to their detriment ; questioned them respecting
' Case No. 18-R-1145; 59 N. L R B 1270.
z ".. all production and maintenance employees of the Company, including watchmen
and regular part-time employees, but excluding office and factory clerical employees, execu-
tives, foremen and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action ..."
8 The tally of ballots served by the Regional Director upon representatives of the parties
at the conclusion of the balloting, was as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------------- 89
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------------- None
Votes cast for United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I O--- 28
Votes cast against participating labor organization------------------------- 46
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------------- 74
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------------- 5
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots--------------------------------- 79
4 Docketed as Case No. 18-C-1114
6 An amended complaint dated March 13, 1945, was thereafter, on the date thereof, duly
served upon the parties. It corrected the date of the election to "January 19, 1945."
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY - 551
their union affiliations and activities ; prevented the distribution of union litera-
ture, and by various other means, including statements derogatory of the Union,
attempted to and did dissuade its employees from engaging in union activities ;
and (3) by such acts and statements interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On March 22, 1945, the respondent filed an answer admitting certain allegations
of the complaint with respect to the nature of its business but denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Waterloo, Iowa, on March 29 and 30,
1945, before the undersigned Josef L. Hektoen, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were repre-
sented by counsel and the Union appeared by its representative ; all participated
in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the close of the hearing, the motion of counsel for the Board to conform the
pleadings to the proof in formal matters was allowed and he argued orally before
the undersigned. Counsel for the respondent thereafter filed a brief with him.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RI-SPONDENT
The respondent, Litchfield Manufacturing Company, is an Iowa corporation
maintaining its office and place of business in Waterloo, Iowa, where it is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of farm implements. Raw materials used by it are
principally steel, lumber, and castings. During the period May to October 1944, it
bought materials having a value of $286,674.15, 36 percent thereof from points
outside the State of Iowa. During the same period it sold finished products
having a value of $93,737.36, 56 percent thereof being shipped by it to points outside
the State of Iowa.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of
the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization admitting employees of the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. The Union begins organizational activity ; opposition by the respondent
The Union began its organizational efforts at the respondent 's plant in October
1944. Its proponents thereafter distributed leaflets outside the plant and solicited
employees for membership . During the time material herein , the respondent
employed about 90 production and maintenance employees and operated on a 52
hour week.
Employee Irving Genrich testified that on October 5 , Superintendent Earl Mayer
told him he was surprised that after Genrich 's experiences with another labor
organization elsewhere , he should now be in favor of the Union , and informed
him that if the Union organized the plant the work -week would be- reduced to 40
hours. Mayer admitted speaking to Genrich in this fashion but denied mention-
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing a reduction in hours to 40 per week. Genrich further testified without denial,
and the undersigned finds, that Mayer told him that 3 to 6 months would elapse
before the Union could organize the plant, at the end of which time many persons
would be seeking employment. The undersigned was most favorably impressed
by Genrich as a witness. As is hereinafter found, the respondent's anti-union
campaign was in large measure based upon a threatened reduction in the em-
ployees' hours of work should the Union succeed in organizing the plant. The
undersigned is therefore persuaded, and finds, that Mayer spoke to Genrich as the
latter testified.
Employee Henry Acers credibly testified that about October 15, George Grimes,
then general foreman of the plant," asked him whether he desired the Union in
the plant. Acers was non-committal. Grimes then stated that it was "dumb
bastards like you that will go ahead and put the union in out there," adding that
in that eventuality, "suckers like you" would have their hours reduced from 52
to 40 per week. Acers further testified that 2 or 3 days later he asked Grimes to
clarify his statements and that Grimes told him he was opposed to the Union.
Grimes categorically denied Acers' testimony and testified that he had never talked
to him except "as an employee in line of work." The undersigned found Grimes
nervous on the witness-stand, particularly when articulating his numerous denials
of anti-union statements attributed to him by Acers and other employees whose
testimony is hereinafter set forth. As is found infra, he later told a union rep-
resentative that he had made numerous anti-union statements prior to the election.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that Grimes spoke to Acers as
testified by the latter.
Employee Marie Kann credibly testified that on about the same date, October 15,
Grimes told her that if the Union organized the plant, its hours of work would
be reduced to 40. Grimes denied the conversation. The undersigned credits
Kann.
2. The petition ; continuing interference
The Union filed its petition for certification of representatives on October 20,
1944. On November 10, the Regional Director issued a Notice of Hearing thereon
for November 29, and on that day a Trial Examiner conducted a hearing in Case
No. 18-1t-1145 in Waterloo.
Employee Arthur Hamm testified that thereafter, during December, Grimes
inquired of him as to how the Union was progressing; Hamm answered that
he did not know ; Grimes informed him that he was sure that if the Union suc-
ceeded in organizing the employees, the plant would go to a 40 hour week and
that if the Union won the election, the employees would be forced to leave the
plant when their particular work was completed rather than being shifted to
another task in the plant, as was then the practice. Grimes admitted speaking
to Hamm at the time in question, but testified that he had merely told him to
use his own judgment respecting the Union. Hamm is shown by the record to
have been one of the more active union members in the plant, having procured
a number of membership applications and acted as an observer at the election.
Grimes testified that he did not know which of the employees were active on
behalf of the Union. As is hereafter found, the respondent had full knowledge
that Hamm was a leading union proponent at this time, and later stated in writ-
ing to the employees that it was informed respecting those of their number who
6 He was in charge of maintenance at the time of the hearing.
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 553
had procured union membership applications . The undersigned credits Hamm's
testimony."`
Hamm further testified that during last December or early January 1945, I. L.
Myers, then head of the corn -picker department in the plant and at the time of
the hearing general foreman under Superintendent Mayer, told him in the pres-
ence of Supervisor Otto Mrotzek 0 that if the Union won the election the plant
would reduce the work-week to 40 hours or close down completely , that Hamm
was foolish to join the Union because he might otherwise get a better position
at the plant, and that the respondent knew that he was a leader in the Union.
Hamm also testified that since about the time the Union began its activities, Myers
had been in the habit of frequently inquiring of him as to its progress . The under-
signed found Myers, who was quite obviously desirous of assisting the re-
spondent in any way open to him, to have been an unconvincing witness. He
denied the conversation attributed to him by Hamm and testified that the latter
had volunteered the fact of his union sympathies to him. Mrotzek was not ques-
tioned regarding the incident . Myers also testified that numerous employees
had from time to time, prior to the election , asked him concerning the advis-
ability of joining the Union and inquired of him respecting the rumored reduc-
tion of the work-week to 40 hours , that he had in each case replied that the
union question was one for the employees themselves to solve and that he had
heard nothing "official" about the reduction in hours. On cross-examination by
counsel for the Board , Myers was unable to name a single employee to whom he
had thus spoken ° but definitely recalled that employees Hamm, Genrich, Robert
and Lois Smith , Acers, John Ivens, and Elva Baker , all of whom testified that
Myers had made anti -union statements to them, had not requested his advice
and that he had not so informed either or any of them . The undersigned credits
Hamm's version of the conversations and finds that Myers spoke to him substan-
tially as he testified.
Robert and Lois Smith, whose discharges are considered, infra, testified that
during December , Myers, who was then their foreman, told them while they
were at work in the plant that if the Union were successful the respondent would
reduce the hours of work , that it would be "bad" for the employees, and that
there would be no further continuity of work for them. Lois Smith also testified
that Myers , both before and after this incident , ". . . always was saying it would
be bad for us if the union got in." Myers denied the conversations , stating that
he had not spoken to Lois Smith about the Union 30 He has been found to have
been a witness of doubtful credibility . The undersigned found the Smiths,in-
genuous witnesses worthy of belief. He credits their testimony.
The Smiths left the plant on December 26, 1944, under circumstances described
below.
° Union Representative B. C. Ackerson testified that about a month before the instant
hearing , at about the time Grimes was transferred by the respondent from the position of
general foreman to his new task in charge of maintenance at the plant , the latter told him
that prior to the election he had warned certain employees that if the Union were success-
ful, the hours of work in the plant would be cut from 52 to 40 and that he was now
apprehensive of his own position with the respondent Grimes denied the remarks attrib-
uted to him but admitted talking to Ackerson and informing him of his changed task at
the plant . Grimes has been found to have been a witness of dubious credibility. The
undersigned accepts Ackerson's testimony.
° Mrotzek ' s supervisory status is hereinafter discussed.
° He testified :
A. No, I couldn ' t name a half dozen people who worked for me last year, because I
wasn't interested in names.
10 "Not to my knowledge , no" and "No, I wouldn 't have any jurisdiction over that ;
anyway, I didn 't have enough authority."
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Pre-election anti-union activity
Employee Acers testified that in January 1945, shortly before the election,
Myers told him that he was "in line" for a week's vacation and that the respond-
ent would "stand by" him provided "you stick in there and keep pulling with us
and we'll see that this union don't get in here" Former employee Elva Baker
testified that at about the same time, Myers told her, "You know if the union goes
in we'll be cut to 40 hours and there will be no work, not much work. That will
cut your overtime. There won't be much money made." Employee John Ivens
testified that at about the same time, Myers called him to his office, asked how
long he had been employed by the respondent and when Ivens informed him,
stated that he would be eligible for a vacation with pay the following June, and
closed the interview by informing Ivens that if the Union came into the plant
it would reduce its hours to 40 per week or close down entirely. Employee Gen-
rich testified that on January 18, the day preceding the election, Myers asked
him what he thought the result would be, Genrich replied that he was dubious
of the Union's success, Myers thereupon stated that he hoped the Union would
not be successful since if it were, the respondent would lose an important contract
for the manufacture of corn-pickers Myers categorically denied these conversa-
tions. The similarity of Myers' statements, their timing, and all of the surround-
ing circumstances, together with Myers'. discredited status as a witness, lead the
undersigned to reject his denials. It is found that he spoke to Acers, Baker,
Ivens, and Genrich substantially as they testified.
Early in January, certain photographs were taken in the plant by or on behalf
of another concern. Baker testified that Myers informed her and other employees
that "they were there to look the Company over and to take over if the union
went in." Myers denied the conversation. The undersigned accepts Baker's testi-
mony. Manager Jochumsen testified that two sets of photographs were taken :
the first, about Christmas time, for purposes of his report to the respondent's
parent company ; and the second, early in January, of a corn-nicker manufactured
by the respondent for another concern. It is found that regardless of the true
purpose of the photographs, Myers used the occasion of taking the second set to
intimidate the employees with respect to the Union, the obvious implication of his
rdmarks being that the taking over of the plant by another concern in consequence
of the Union's success at the election, would result in employee hardship.
Employee Kann credibly testified that just prior to the election in January,
Leadman Louis Busse 13 told her not to vote for the Union and that if it "got in"
there might be no work for the employees. Busse denied the conversation but
testified that shortly before the election, Kann asked if he were going to vote for
the Union, that he answered in the negative, told her she would have to make
up her own mind about the matter, and that he had spoken of the Union to no
"I Busse was a lead or set-tip man and worked in the machine shop under Superintendent
Mayer. He set up the work and inspected its progress and finished accuracy for some 6
to 15 employees. Except in emergencies , when he "may run a few pieces now and then,"
Busse himself did no work on the machines . At the representation case hearing , Manager
Ed Jochumsen testified that Busse exercised no supervisory powers in that he did not have
authority to make effective recommendations respecting hiring and firing , increases in pay,
or transfers of employees. In the instant hearing, however, Jochumsen identified Busse as
one of the "six or seven lead men next in line of authority under General Foreman Grimes."
Employee Hamm testified that Busse was a lead nian or straw boss and gave directions in
his department. Employee Kann testified that Busse was "foreman in the machine shop."
Busse's name appeared on the list of those eligible to vote at the election, but his vote was
challenged by the Union. Under all of the circumstances revealed in the record , the under-
signed is of the opinion that Busse represented the respondent's management in the eyes
of the employees . See International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72.
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 555
other person in the plant at any time. In view of all of the surrounding circum-
stances, the undersigned considers Busse's testimony inherently incredible. He
finds that the event transpired as related by Kann: 2
4. Election day
Employee Acers credibly testified that on January 19, Inspector Otto Mrotzek'$
told him that he had attended a union meeting the night before to gain informa-
tion and had made a "silly" speech there , and adjured Acers "to get out there
and vote `No ' today." Mrotzek denied the conversation and testified that he
had never spoken of the Union to Acers. Mrotzek did not favorably impress the
undersigned as a witness . He credits Acers' testimony.
Employee Ivens credibly testified that on the same day, before the election,
Mrotzek told him to vote against the Union and said that if it were successful,
Ivens would be discharged but that if it lost at the polls , he would receive a raise
in pay. Shortly after the election a general pay raise was instituted in the
plant, Ivens receiving an increase of 5 cents per hour. He testified that Mrotzek
told hilp at the time that he was receiving it because the Union "didn't get in."
Mrotzek, although he admitted speaking to Myers respecting an increase in pay
for Ivens, denied the statements attributed to him -by the latter and volunteered
that he had thought that Ivens being a minor, could not be a member of the
Union. The undersigned credits Ivens' testimony.
At about noon of January 19, the day of the election , Ed Jochumsen , general
manager of the respondent, on company time assembled all the employees in the
plant and read the following document to them, a copy thereof being handed to
each as he left the meeting :
JANUARY 18, 1945.
To our employees:
The purpose of this meeting is to let you men and women know just how
we stand in regard to the election today.
'a The complaint alleged and the Board sought to establish that the respondent unfairly
prevented the Union from distributing its literature at the plant parking lot. Because his
ultimate conclusions in the case would not be altered by any finding made in connection
with this allegation, the undersigned does not deem it necessary to resolve the conflicting
evidence respecting it.
The Board also sought to show interference by the respondent through permitting the
entry of busses into the plant premises. The evidence discloses that during the fall of
1944, a local bus company suggested, and the respondent accepted, a special "tripper"
service from the plant entrance at the rush hour when the employees left the plant in the
afternoon. Although the arrangement doubtless resulted in complicating the Union's
passing out literature to the employees as they emerged from the plant, the record fails
to sustain the Board's position that the respondent thereby interfered illegally with the
Union.
Employee Mrs. Ed Swehla testified that one Thomas Neeson, whom she described as a
supervisory employee , made certain anti-union remarks to her in December 1944. The
record reveals that Neeson was In charge of mixing paint at the time of the incident com-
plained of and a laborer at the time of the hearing. From the relevant evidence, the
undersigned concludes and finds that Neeson was not a supervisory employee for whose
utterances the respondent was responsible and makes no finding of unfair labor practices
based upon the incident.
11 Jochumsen identified Mrotzek as inspector in the cornpicker department under Myers.
He inspected the work of 15 or 20 employees , and according to employee Hamm, gave
directions in his department. Acers testified that he had "always thought [Mrotzek] to
be my foreman." As is hereinafter found, Mrotzek sent Robert and Lois Smith to Super.
intendent Mayor to be "reassigned" on the occasion of their leaving the plant, and after
the election, intervened with Myers in the matter of a raise in pay for employee Ivens.
Mrotzek voted at the election without challenge As in the case of Busse, however, the
undersigned considers it clear, and finds, that Mrotzek, in the opinion of the employees,
poke for the respondent and that his statements and acts are therefore attributable to it.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
First of all , I would like to make it clear that all our employees have a
perfect right to join or vote for any Union they want , and we in no way will
discriminate against you for so doing.
The thing I would like to discuss with you is some of the promises the
Union organizers have made to you.
WORKING CONDITIONS :
I think everyone of you who were here one year ago will agree that we
have improved the working conditions , and spent more money in proportion-
to our sales for this purpose , than any other plant in this district.
WAGES :
Every person in this room is being paid according to the rates set by the
War Labor Board for this plant , and they are in line and even higher in some
cases than other plants in this district . I think a good incentive system
is very desirable and considerable thought has already been given , and will
be given to this subject.
REPRESENTATION: 0
This is a question of whether you want an outsider to represent you or
you want to do it yourself . My door has always been open for any em-
ployees who had a grievance of any kind , and our past record of labor rela-
tions indicates that we have exerted our utmost to be fair with you and
want to continue in this manner.
SENIORITY RIGHTS:
In many cases this is a fine thing but to some of you this could be very
bad. It might be possible that even if you were the best assembler , let's say,
in this plant , that we would have to lay you off and keep someone only half
as good as you are.
EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN:
We agree with this theory, but would add "Equal pay for women who do
a man's work" and then be sure you compare yourself with a man who is
doing a man 's work . This is a touchy question but I am sure individual
adjustments will be more satisfactory than an overall policy.
In today's election there are just two things to choose between-No Union
or the CIO . Please do not write anything else on your ballot or your vote
may be disqualified.
The National Labor Relations Board in Washington reported to us that
the Union presented 44 signed application cards for membership in the
Union out of 90 employees . We knew who the men and women were that
were active in signing up these 44 employees on Company time against Com-
pany rules of solicitation and not one of them has been reprimanded by us.
We want a true picture as to whether you want a Union or not, and I ask
you as a personal favor to vote today , regardless of how you vote, so we will
be sure just what you , our employees really want.
LITCHFIFI,D MFG. CO.
Waterloo, Iowa.
The record discloses no published rules of the respondent against solicitation.
Jochumsen testified that the respondent did not "allow any solicitation around the
plant except for Red Cross , Community Chest funds , and those kinds of things",
but that the employees had been informed of such rule "Just in a general way."
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 557
The polls were open on election day from 3: 45 to 5 p. m 14 Union Representa-
tive Ackerson drove to Robert Smith 's home and brought him to the plant at
about 4: 40 p . in. Smith proceeded to the plant clock -house, the only means of
ingress to the premises , and as he approached the door thereof , it was opened
partially by Superintendent Mayer. Smith asked Mayer if he could vote. Ac-
cording to Smith, Mayer answered , "No, you can't vote ." Mayer testified that he
told Smith , "I don't know." Mayer thereupon shut and locked the door and Smith
left. Because of the Union 's effort in getting Smith to the polling-place , and his
own effort to vote, it seems highly unlikely to the undersigned that he would have
left the premises upon Mayer's informing him that he did not know whether or
not he could . Furthermore , the circumstances surrounding Mayer's presence in
the clock-house and the fact that the only means of entry into the plant was locked
while the polls were still open, viewed in the light of the unfair labor practices
heretofore found, are so highly suspicious to the undersigned that upon the entire
record, he finds that Mayer spoke to Smith as the latter testified and prevented
him from exercising his right to vote in the election.18
The undersigned finds that by the anti -union acts and statements of Mayer,
Grimes, Myers, Busse, and Mrotzek related above, and by the speech of Jochumsen
and its distribution in printed form, informing the employees that the respondent
had knowledge of the identity of those of them who had been active in, obtaining
union membership applications from among their colleagues "against Company
rules of solicitation " and urging them to reject the Union to the end that the re-
spondent might continue to deal with them on an individual basis, and by their
totality , the respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharges
The Smiths were employed by the respondent in the late summer of 1944, and
when discharged , were working in the corn -picker assembly under Foreman Myers.
On December 26, 1944, Inspector Mrotzek sent them to Superintendent Mayer
to be "reassigned ." Mayer informed them that the respondent ' s corn-picker
assembly was completed and that since the work on trailers which the respondent
thereafter planned to manufacture required less employees , they would be laid off.
He also informed them that they could return to work in 3 months if they so
desired. They thereupon left the plant . Lois Smith procured work elsewhere on
December 28 and Robert on December 30, both through the United States Employ-
ment Service.
On January 29, 1945, the Union filed its charge of unfair labor practices in Case
No. 18-C-111418 and on the same day the Regional Director notified the respond-
ent by letter of this fact. The respondent received such notification on January
30, between 9:15 and 9:30 a. nI Later, on the same day, Jochumsen wrote the
Smiths stating that the respondent would shortly begin work on assembling
corn-pickers and requested them to report for work at the plant on February 10.
They did not reply and did not report. On February 19, they received notices
of separation, dated February 17, from the respondent stating that they had
"quit without good cause." On the same day they wrote Jocbumsen protesting
14 Originally scheduled for from 4 . 15 to 5 , the polling time was advanced by agreement
so as to enable the employees to vote without interfering with their leaving the plant at
4 :30, their regular Friday quitting time
11 As related above, the Union lost the election by 46 votes to 28.
19 Alleging , among other things, that the Smiths had been discriminatorily discharged on
December 26, 1944.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they had not quit, stated that they were "frozen" in their new jobs, and
asked for information and possible back pay. On February 23, Jochumsen
replied stating that the respondent had laid them off on December 26, that Mayer
had stated that they might return when work on the corn-pickers resumed, that
the respondent had notified them to return, that they-had not done so for 7 days
at the end of which the respondent was entitled to and did remove them from its
pay roll, and that the U. S. E. S office had informed the respondent that because
they were "frozen" neither of them could return to work for the respondent.
Lois Smith joined the Union early in its activities at the plant and subsequently
obtained 5 or 6 applications for membership from among the employees. Robert
joined the Union in October 1944, and thereafter attended several of its meetings
and distributed a number of membership applications to employees.
The respondent's answer and brief state that Mayer offered the Smiths other
work in the plant on December 26, and that they refused it. Mayer himself
testified, however, that he could not remember having done so ; the Smiths posi-
tively testified that he did not. The undersigned finds that the respondent did
not offer them work elsewhere on December 26.
The record reveals that only three persons, including the 2 Smiths, were laid
off in the corn-picker department on December 26," while some 30 to 40 others
in that department were thereafter absorbed elsewhere in the plant. The Smiths
had done types of work in the plant other than that they were performing when
deprived of their jobs. At all times material herein the respondent was in need
of employees and had standing orders with the U. S. E. S. for suitable workers.
The respondent had never criticized the Smiths' work. It is thus clear, and the
undersigned finds, that the respondent singled them out from the other em-
ployees in their department and applied discriminatory treatment to them by
not giving them work elsewhere.
The respondent was well aware of the union membership and activities of
both the Smiths. Thus the record reveals that during December General Fore-
man Grimes was present in a local tavern or restaurant when Organizer Acker-
son asked Robert Smith to assist in promoting a union party. Lois, who was
also present, testified that Grimes was only 3 or 4 feet away when Ackerson
did so. Ackerson and Robert Smith corroborated her testimony. Grimes
admitted seeing the group but denied that he was in a position to over-
hear the conversation . The undesigned rejects his denial and finds that as a
result of Grimes' presence at the incident, the respondent was appraised of
the Smiths' interest in and close association with the Union. On January 19,
the day of the election, Ackerson, Charles Hobble, union representative, employee
Hamm, Board Field Examiner Julius Draznin, Manager Jochumsen and Lead-
man George Foster met in the plant to determine employee eligibility to vote.18
Asked why the Smiths were omitted from the list of those eligible prepared by
him, Jochumsen, according to Ackerson and Hobble, first stated that they had
been discharged and were therefore ineligible , but upon investigation of his
records announced that they were classified as being laid off and that he had
excluded 'them on the basis of information from the U . S. E. S. office to the
the effect that they could not return to work for the respondent because they
17 The third , Arthur Murray, a union member, was not alleged by the complaint to have
been discriminated against.
18 In accordance with the Board 's Decision and Direction , the notice of election stated
that those in the appropriate unit "who were employed during the pay-roll period ending
December 21, 1944, including watchmen and regular part-time employees who did not work
during said pay -roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off ..."
were eligible to vote, but that those "who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election " were not.
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 559
had been "frozen" in their new jobs. Draznin stated that he would rule on
their eligibility if they appeared at the polls. Jochumsen denied having stated
that they were discharged.'s The undersigned credits Ackerson and Robbie. In
the face of the clear mandate contained in the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election, the undersigned considers it manifest that Jochumsen's efforts to
prevent their voting must be attributed to his knowledge of their union sym-
pathies and his purpose to deprive the Union of their unquestionably favorable
votes. He so finds. Mayor's barring of Robert from the polling place later
in the day is found to have been similarly motivated.
The facts revealed by the evidence as a whole, including the known union
sympathies and activities of the Smiths, their "lay-offs" on December 26 in the
face of stringent manpower need by the respondent and their satisfactory work
and ability to perform work elsewhere in the plant, Jochumsen's excluding them
from the list of those eligible to vote at the election, Mayer's barring Robert
Smith from the polls,.the respondent's immediate recalling them to work when
notified of their being the subject of unfair labor charges by the Union and
subsequently formally severing them from the respondent's pay roll, and its
unrelenting campaign against the Union both before and after the election, com-
bine to convince the undersigned that the Smiths were in fact discharged on
December 26, their purported lay-offs having been merely a device for the pur-
pose of concealing the respondent's real reason for causing them to leave the
plant, and that its subsequent formal offer to them of reinstatement with the
knowledge that according to the U. S. E. S., they could not accept it, was not
made in good faith but was motivated by the pending charge of the Union
and constituted a part of the respondent's plan of action, thereafter promptly
carried through, to permanently rid itself of the Smiths on account of their
union membership and activity.
The undersigned finds that the respondent has discriminated against Robert
and Lois Smith in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, and has thereby, and by the anti-union
activities of Jochumsen and Mayer, related above, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
IV, THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent set forth in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of Robert and Lois Smith because of their union membership and
activities. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
"Hamm was not questioned respecting the matter and neither Draznin nor Foster
appeared as a witness.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
It will be further recommended that the respondent make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination
against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount
each would normally have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination
to the date of, the respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less the net earnings 21 of
each during said period.
The objections to the election
Viewing the activity of the respondent during the entire period covered by
the complaint , it is clear that, acting through the supervisors named above, the
respondent engaged in a deliberate , systematic , and unrelenting campaign to
frustrate the organizational efforts of its employees . It was marked by ques-
tioning them as to their union membership and activities , threats of their loss
of jobs and pay if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant , warnings to
cease their union membership and activities on pain of retributive action by the
respondent , the discharges of two union protagonists in the plant 3 weeks before
the election , and by a particularly telling attack upon the Union just prior to the
election by which the respondent made doubly clear to them its enmity to their
efforts toward self-organization , the whole climaxed by depriving a well-known
union proponent of his vote.
In a small plant of 90 employees , the extraordinarily blunt and energetic anti-
union campaign waged by not less than 6 supervisory employees , including the
respondent 's summary action in ridding the plant of two of the more active union
employees , must in a realistic appraisal of its inevitable result, be found to have
deprived the employees of their right to freely select a bargaining representative
of their own choosing at the election 21 The undersigned will therefore recommend
that the objections of the Union to the election be sustained in conformity to
the findings herein made , and that the results of the election of January 19, 1945,
be set aside.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record is
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C . I. 0., is a labor
organization , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert
Smith and Lois Smith , thereby discouraging membership in the Union , the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
20 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
earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N L. R. B , 311 U S. 7
21 It is noteworthy that although the Board reported applications for membership by 44
employees whose names appeared on the respondent 's pay roll of October 19, 1944, 3
months later, on January 19, only 28 employees voted for the Union.
LITCHFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 561
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Litchfield Manufacturing Com-
pany, Waterloo, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers
of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition thereof ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
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, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Robert Smith and Lois Smith immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole said Robert Smith and Lois Smith for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them,
in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy," above ;
(c) Post at its Waterloo, Iowa, plant, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the re-
spondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Re-
gional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respond-
ent to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the objections of United Farm Equipment and
Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., to the election of January 19, 1945, be, in
conformity with the findings made herein, sustained, and that the results of
said election be set aside.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , 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 the Intermediate Report 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 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board. '
JosEr L. HERTozN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 15, 1945.
NLRB 577
(9-1-44)
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
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 Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America,
C I. 0. 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.
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 and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Robert Smith
Lois Smith
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organi-
zation.
LITCHFiELW MANurACTURINO COMPANY
(Employer)
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 accord-
ance 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.