Peerless Pattern Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1473 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of FRED S. WEST, FRED C. 117EST AND LEONARD R. WEST,
CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS P1'.iuiLESS PATTERN WORDS and
LOCAL 212, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 7-C-1272.-Decided December 20, 19415
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 10, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor prac-
tices found and take certain affirmative action, as set out in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Pattern Makers' Association of Detroit, herein called the Pattern
Makers, having been granted leave to intervene by an order of the
Board of September 13, 1945, also filed a brief. On October 16, 1945,
the Board heard oral argument in Washington, D. C. The respondent
participated in the argument; the Union and the Pattern Makers did
not appear.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's brief and exceptions, the Pattern
Makers' brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the modifications and additions noted below:
1. Subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report, the re-
spondent contended for the first time that the Board was without
jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues herein on the ground
that the proceedings were not brought within the time prescribed by
the riders attached to the "National Labor Relations Board Appro-
priation Acts" for 1944 and 1945.1 This contention rests on the view
that the respondent's contract with the Pattern Makers, which had
r In pertinent part , the riders in question prohibited the Board from using funds "in
connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement which has been in exist-
ence for three months or longer without complaint being filed
(14N L H. B, No 241
670417-46-vol 64-94 1473
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been in existence for more than 3 months before the filing of the
charge, is directly in issue. However, our disposition of the case, as
set forth below, involves no interpretation of the contract or adjudi-
cation of the rights of the parties thereunder, and does not affect the
contract in any way. In any event, at all times material herein, the
respondent and the Pattern Makers were operating under an oral
extension of the expired written agreement of April 1943, to which
the rider is not applicable.2 Under the circumstances, we find the
respondent's contention without merit.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, in laying off the
Keller operators on February 2 and 3, 1944, was influenced " to a ma-
terial degree" by the prospects of a strike by the Pattern Makers and
that therefore the lay-offs were violative of the Act. In our opinion,
the record does not support this finding, especially in view of the
clear showing, as found by the Trial Examiner, that at the time in
question and for some period thereafter, there was no work in the
plant for the Keller operators. Moreover, as contended by the re-
spondent and found by the Trial Examiner, the strike threat contained
in the Pattern Makers' letter of January 20, 1944, designed to force
the respondent to withhold Keller work on patterns from the regular
Keller operators and to give such work to members of the Pattern
Makers, was removed on January 24, 1944, when the Pattern Makers
agreed to take no action on its ultimatum until the Board issued a
decision in the pending representation proceeding. This latter case
is still pending, and the agreement of January 24 is still in effect.
Under the circumstances, we do not find that the lay-offs of February
2 and 3, 1944, were discriminatory. The Trial Examiner's finding
in this respect is hereby reversed.
3. We agree with the'Trial Examiner that the respondent discrimi-
natorily failed to give employment to the Keller operators named in
the Board's complaint, when work subsequently became available.,
Our concurrence, however, is predicated on the following grounds:
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that it was the respondent's
practice to recall laid off employees when work became available for
them. The respondent, in effect, admits that it did not recall the
Keller operators because they were not members of the Pattern Makers;
it seeks to justify such discrimination on the ground that when the
Keller operators procured their certificates of availability and ob-
tained other employment, they in effect had resigned and were not
employees of the respondent and that therefore the Pattern Makers
would regard them as new employees if they were recalled and would
not permit them to work under the terms of its closed-shop agree-
ment. This asserted defense lacks merit. We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the procurement of releases by the Keller operators
2 See Opinion of the Comptroller General, dated August 24 , 1944, B-43670.
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1475
did not constitute a resignation of employment or otherwise affect
their status as laid-off employees which they acquired at the time of
the lay-off, and which they would have normally retained .3 Such
releases were necessary, under the regulations of the War Manpower
Commission, in order for employees to secure even temporary employ-
ment during the period of the lay-off in question. Moreover, as
pointed out by the Trial Examiner, the Keller operators made it clear
to the respondent that they desired to continue in its employ and to
resume work at such time as the respondent would permit them.
Nor do we believe that the respondent is in a position to urge, as
a defense to this proceeding, its relationship, or contract, with the
Pattern Makers. Firstly, the respondent has ascribed to the Pattern
Makers an erroneous conclusion with respect to the continuing em-
ployee status of the Keller operators, which the Pattern Makers itself
has never advanced. Secondly, it has attempted gratuitously to
invoke the Pattern Makers' alleged closed-shop contract so as to deny
employment to the Keller operators in order to avoid possible future
reprisals by the Pattern Makers. As pointed out above and in the
Intermediate Report, the Pattern Makers' demand of January 20 that
the Keller operators be denied pattern work in accordance with the
Pattern Makers' interpretation of its contract, was subsequently with-
drawn pending decision by the Board in the representation case. The
withdrawal was in effect at all times material herein. This had the
effect of restoring, at least for some indefinite future period, the
status quo, whereunder the Keller operators were permitted to do
pattern work without becoming members of the Pattern Makers,
either as a matter of right or grace under the terms of the contract in
question 4 However, the respondent, to avoid the possibility of any
future labor dispute with the Pattern Makers, failed to reinstate the
Keller operators because of their non-membership in the Pattern
Makers. It is well settled that such conduct cannot be justified on
the ground of economic expediency.' In agreement with the Trial
Examiner, we find that in failing to recall the Keller operators be-
cause of their non-membership in the Pattern Makers, the respondent
discriminated with respect to their hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. We do not agree, with the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Keller operators would normally have been recalled on April 26, 1944,
8 Matter of Republic Steel Corporation , 62 N. L. R B 1008
* Under the circumstances , we find it unnecessary to pass on the ultimate rights of the
parties under the alleged closed -shop contract.
5 Matter of Star Publishing Co , 4 N L R B. 498, enf ' d 97 F ( 2d) 465 (C C A 9) ,
Matter of Cluck Brewing Co., 47 N. L. It. B 1079, enf'd as mod 144 F (2d) 847 (C C A.
8) ; Matter of National Broadcasting Company , 61 N. L. R B. 161 , enf'd 150 F. ( 2d) 895
(C C A.2).
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when work was begun on the Parsons-Merrit Co. order. The record
discloses that between April 26 and May 10, 1944, there was only
enough Keller work for one operator and that, in accordance with
the respondent's established practice, Keller Shop Foreman Wenzel
was properly given such work. On May 10, 1944, however, additional
Keller work became available, which was assigned to other employees
who had not theretofore worked regularly on the Keller machine.
Under the circumstances, we find that, absent discrimination, the
Keller operators would have been recalled on May 10, 1944.
THE REMEDY
We shall order reinstatement for the Keller operators, as recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and award them back pay from May
10, 1944. Normally in cases of this kind involving a discriminatory
refusal to reinstate, we also order the employer to cease and desist
from in any manner Infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. However, in the instant case, the respondent failed to
Ieinstate the Keller operators because it believed in good faith, though
mistakenly, that its contract with the Pattern Makers required the
Keller operators to be members of the Pattern Makers as a condition
precedent to their reinstatement. Under such circumstances, and, iu
view of the absence of any evidence that clanger of the commission
of other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the respond-
ent's conduct in the past, we shall not enjoin the respondent from the
commission of any and all unfair labor practices.' Nevertheless, in
order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, we shall order the respond-
ent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and
from any like or related act or conduct interfering -Nvitlh the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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 co-partnership , Fred S.
West, Fred C. West, and Leonard R. West, doing business as Peerless
Pattern Works, Detroit, Michigan, and their agents , successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 212, International Union,
United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
I See N L R B v Express Pvblisbino Company . 2,12 U S 426 ; diatle of Po9 iland
Lumber M ills, 64 N L R IS 159
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1477
,or in any other labor organization of their employees, by refusing to
reinstate any of their employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any other
term or condition of their employment;
(b) Engaging in any like or related act or conduct interfering
with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
,and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, alliliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own ehoosing,
and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the folloitmg affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Charles Parks, Donald White, and Frank Shafran
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 Parks, White, and Shafran for any loss of pay
that they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, by payment to each of theme of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
during the period from May 10, 1944, to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period;
(c) Upon application by Walter Hill and Milton Sharp, each,
1N ithin ninety (90) clays after his discharge from the armed forces
of the United States, offer each reinstatement to his former or a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges;
(d) Make whole Walter Hill and Milton Sharp for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he normally -,would have earned as wages
during the periods (1) from May 10, 1944, to the date of his induc-
tion into military service; 7 and (2)- from a date five (5) days after
his timely application for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during these periods;
(e) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to
' This sum shall be paid to each immediately, without awaiting a final determination of
the full amount of his award
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous 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;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT is FURTI-LER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by the dis-
charge of Milton Sharp, Frank Shafran, Donald White, Charles
Parks, and Walter Hill, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
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 WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 212, Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization of our
employees, by refusing to reinstate any of our employees because
of union membership, or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related. act or conduct
interfering with, restraining, or coercing our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist the above-named 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.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1479,
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Charles Parks
Donald White
Frank Shafran
Walter Hill
Milton Sharp
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By ---------------
(Representative)
--------------
(Title)
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. David Citron, for the Board.
Mr. Frank T. Kenney, of Detroit, Mich. for the respondent.
Mr. Clare Kurth and Mr. Leslie T. Kaines, of Detroit, Mich, for the Union
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on December 15, 1944, by Local 212, In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (CIO), herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Seventh
Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated December 18, 1944, against
Fred S West, Fred C West, and Leonard R. West, co-partners doing business
as Peerless Pattern Works, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce 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. Copies
of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that on or about February 4, 1944, the respondent discharged Milton Sharp,.
Frank Shafran, Donald White, Charles Parks, and Walter Hill, and thereafter
refused to reinstate them, because of their membership in and activities on be-
half of the Union, and for the purpose of (a) discouraging membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union and (b) encouraging membership in and ac-
tivities on behalf of Pattern Makers League of North America, an affiliate of the
American Federation of Labor.
The respondent's answer,' dated December 28, 1941, denied that it had dis-
charged the above-named persons and denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 4 to 6, inclusive, 8, 10,.
to 13, inclusive, 16 and 17, 1945, in Detroit, Michigan, before the undersigned
1 Amended as to phraseology of paragraph 8 on motion made at the hearing.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trial Examiner , duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by representa-
tives. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard , to examine
and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the close of the Board's case , Board counsel moved to conform the complaint
to the proof , especially to amend the date of the alleged discharges to Febru-
ary 3, 1934 . The motion was granted . At the same time counsel for the
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was based
on a charge of an improper party This motion was denied. At the close
of the heating counsel for the respondent again moved to dismiss the com-
plaint on the 'same ground The motion was denied , and the Board 's counsel
moved further to ainend the date of the alleged discharge of Sharp , Shafran,
and Hill to February 2, 1944 , and further to amend the complaint to conform
to the proof as to names and places The motion was granted . At the close
of the hearing the pa: ties argued orally • before the undersigned . Although
respondent 's counsel stated his intention to file a brief and additional time was
given therefor, no briefs have been received.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF TILE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a co-partnership, composed of Fred S West, Fred C West,
and Leonard R West. who are engaged in Detroit, Miichigan, in the manufacture
and sale of wood and metal patterns, at present chiefly for the production of
castings to be used in the manufacture of aircraft engines . During the year
1944 the respondent's purchases of materials totaled approximately $05,000,
of which amount appioxinlately G percent was imported from points outside the
State of Michigan For the year 1944 the respondent Ill oduced goods of a value in
excess of $500,000, of which an amount equal to 40 to 45 percent was shipped
to points outside the State of Michigan. The respondent stipulated that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11 THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 212, international Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, and Pattern Makers' Association of Detroit,, members of Pattern
Makers' League of North America, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Lail-olf avid refusal to reinstate the Kellen operators
Since 1937 the respondent has had a written contract with the Pattern Makers'
Association of Detroit, hereinafter called the Pattern Makers, covering the
wood and metal pattern and model makers and their apprentices, by which the
respondent bound itself to call the Pattern Makers for such employees when
they were needed. The contract further provided that all patterns and parts
pertaining to patterns should be made by pattern makers whenever possible.
The Pattern Makers and the respondent regarded this as a closed-shop con-
tract. Despite the contract, however, the respondent with the tacit consent of
the Pattern Makers, employed a number of non-members to operate its two
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1481
Keller machine Kellers iiie automatic, electrically operated, pattern dupli-
cating machine.,,, capable of duplicating irregular shapes in metal pattei ns, from
a plaster or wood model, in most instances much faster than they could be
duplicated by hand, and. within certain limits, these machines could in one
operation make as many as three duplicates. The Kellers are used on die
jobs independently of the manufacture of patterns in the respondent's plant
as well as on the patterns that are made in the plant. One of the respondent's
Keller machines had been acquired in about 1934 and the other about the end
of 194].
In January of 1944, the respondent had in its employ five Keller operators a in
addition to the foreman of the Keller department With one man on each
Keller, the respondent was able to operate them for three shifts.' Since the
United States entered the war, the Keller machines were never idle for more
than a few days or a week at a time During these periods, the Keller operators
had been given odd ,lobs, such as toolroom or niainteniuice work to perform'
Chan les Parks, one of the Feller operators, was employed by the respondent in
June 1937 for odd job work In the latter part of 1938 lie was taught by Carl
Wenzel, who was in charge of Keller work, to operate the Keller machine, and
he worked on that machine from time to time for about a year or two when lie
began to work almost exclusively on the Keller Parks was laid off in 1937 or
1938 for a period of about 6 months and in 1930 for about 2 or 3 months. On
such occasions be had returned to make inquiries and when work was available
had been called back to work" Keller operators are difficult to find on the
labor market, so they are usually trained in the plant. It takes about three
years for a Keller operator to become proficient and longer than that to become
thoroughly experienced
None of the aforesaid five Keller operators as a member of the Pattern
Makers In about March 1943, having heard that the Pattern Makers was
seeking a new contract and that it wished to exclude them from doing any
work on which the Pattern Makers worked, the Keller operators called on
3. L. Weiser, the business manager of the Pattern Makers, to see if they could
be taken into that organization Weiser told them that Keller operators were
not regarded as pattern makers but that he would consult the executive board
and let them know. However, Weiser failed to get in touch with them. In
December 1943, convinced that the Pattern Makers would not take them, they
called at the offices of the Union to learn if the Union could represent them.
Leslie T Karnes, recording secretary of the Union, early in January 1944, tele-
phoned Weiser to learn if the Pattern Makers claimed jurisdiction over the
Keller operatois Weiser, although claiming to have a closed-shop contract,
said that the Keller operators were not covered by it, that the Pattern Makers
did not want them, and that the Union could have them The Keller operators
2 West claimed a verbal agreement with' the Pattern Makers that they "would never
bother" the Keller operators
3 Charles Parks, first employed in 1937 , Walter Hill, employed In February 1941 , Donald
White, employed in June 1941, Milton Sharp, employed in January 1942, and Frank Shaf-
ran, emploved in September 1942 A sixth , Jack Geddes , had gone into the Army prior to
the time of the layoffs hereinafter discussed
4 The rest of the plant operated as a rule on two shifts
5 Even during the summer of 1941, when there was a period of about 2 months when the
Kellers were idle, the Keller operators were not laid off, but were given maintenance work
Another employee who had been laid off prior to 1941 was recalled when there was work.
4 The Pattein Makers' last iii itten contract with the respondent expired on April 1, 1943,
but was orally extended until the teims of a new agicenient could be reached.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then joined the Union , except for White, who already belonged to another local
of the Union , and who merely transferred his membership.
About January 14, 1944, Raines, Parks , and White called on Fred S . West,'
hereinafter referred to as West , informed him that the Union represented the
Keller operators and that it wished to bargain for them West said that he had a
closed-shop contract with the Pattern Makers but that if Karnes was able to work
out a contract that would not conflict with the one that he had with the Pattern
Makers, he would sign it, but that it would first have to be approved by the Pat-
tern Makers The Union, unable to reach such agreement , tiled the petition for
investigation and certification with the Board on January 17, 1944.
Under date of January 20, 1944, the Pattern Makers wrote the respondent that
they refused , "after Monday , January 24 , 1944 , to allow others than pattern
makers to work on patterns at Peerless Pattern Works. " Within the next few
days the respondent reached an agreement with the representatives of the
Pattern Makers by which the Pattern Makers agreed to withhold any action on
this ultimatum pending the outcome of the representation case "
A Bearing was held in the representation case on January 28 and 29 , 194430
On the night following the end of the representation case hearing , Parks and
White were without a job prepared for them to run and they were standing by
White 's machine (which was running) talking when West returned to the plant
to pick up a package . Not hearing the usual noise of the machines , West went
back to look . He stood behind a milling machine with a watch in his hand and
after 30 or 40 minutes he approached the men and told Parks he was fired and
that White could go home too if lie wanted to Parks explained that there was
no job ready for his machine West took Parks and White to the office while he
telephoned Wenzel to see if there was a job ready for the Keller . During the
telephone conversation West started a dictaphone to record the conversation.
Afterwards West apologized , told Parks he was not fired, and returned to line up
a job for the Kellers While doing so, according to Parks' and White 's testimony,
West said that "off the record " he could not ask them to join the Pattern Makers,
but he thought the Pattern Makers knew they were "licked", that he thought that
they would be accepted if they applied again, and that, if they were, he not only
would be willing but would be obliged to pay them the mininum rate of $190
Parks and White did not commit themselves in reply.
On February 2, Hill, Shalp , and Shafran , who worked on the first and second
shifts, were laid off, and Parks and White were alid off at the end of their night
shift on the morning of February 3 At the time they were laid off , Walter
Martin, plant superintendent , informed the Keller operators that there was no
8 Fred S West took over the position of general manager in January, ashen his son, Fred
-C West, was preparing to enter the Army
On Monday, January 24, at 8 a in the pattern makers refused to start work until, about
15 minutes later, they were informed of this agreement
At the representation hearing \'Vest testified that lie regarded the ultimatum as a request
that he discharge the Keller operators, that after January 24, he understood that the rat-
tern Makers would not "insist upon the discharge of these five nien until this matter is
disposed of before this Board, and that if the Pattern Makers enforced their order, he would
have no work foe the Keller operators" and so lie "naturally" world discharge them.
"Further action on this case was withheld by the Board pending determination of the
instant case
31 West denied having made these statements, although he either admitted or failed to
testify as to the balance of the occurrences Board's counsel stated that he made no con-
tention that any of the foregoing statements or acts of \'Vest in this incident were violations
of Section 8 (1) of the Act, and the undersigned does not find that they are , but it is found
that what is set forth above took place, and it is related as one of the indications that West
believed there would be difficulties if the Keller operators were members of the Union rather
.than of the Pattern Makers
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1483
more Keller work in the plant, that a big job was coming through, but that it
would not be ready for the Keller work for 2 or 3 months, and he asked White
for his telphone number so that he could reach him.
About the time of the lay-off, or a few clays thereafter, West telephone an-
other plant which had Keller machines and asked if they could use any Keller'
operators, as the respondent was laying its Keller operators off for lack of work."
As a result of this call, Hill secured a job in that plant.
The evidence that there was no more Keller work available in the plant after
the completion on February 3 of the job then on the machine was not refuted 13
Preliminary work was then being done on patterns on the big job (for the Wright
Aeronautical Corporation) which Martin mentioned to the Keller operators, at
the time of their lay-off, as expected in 2 or 3 months. Actually it was ready
for Keller work on May 10, 1944 About the end of January or early in February
the respondent made some efforts to get Keller work which involved no pattern
work, and on February 16, 1944, the respondent received a small order from
Hotchkiss Tool & Engineering Company involving about 75 hours of Keller work.
This work was performed entirely by Wenzel who finished the job on February
28.14 The other Keller operators were not asked to work on it.
The original charge in this case was filed on February 9, 1944, and the cus-
tomary notice thereof was sent to the respondent. On February 21 the five
Keller operators went to the plant each, with the exception of Sharp, who
had been inducted into the army and expected to leave shortly, handed to West
a letter reading:
I hereby apply for my release from the Peerless Pattern Works without
prejudice to my case before the National Labor Relations Board.
In the event that the case is decided in our favor, I will immediately apply
for reinstatement.
West thereupon caused to be prepared four releases and gave them to Hill,
White, Shafran, and Parks. At this time they asked West if there was any more
Keller work and West replied that there was not.
On April 26, 1944, the respondent received an order for Keller work exclusive
of pattern work from Parsons-Merrit Co. This order involved about 563 hours
of work and extended over a period from April 26 to October 3. Meanwhile, on
May 10, Keller work was started on the expected big job for the Wright Aeronau-
tical Co., for which the respondent had done all the pattern work On and after
April 26 the respondent could have used the Keller operators who had been laid
off. From that day there was enough work to operate the Kellers three shifts
per day The Keller operators were not recalled or notified in any way, however.
West's reason for failing to recall the Keller operators was that he regarded
the men, all except Sharp," as having resigned (when they procured their re-
1E The time of this call was not definitely fixed , but the undersigned infers that it was
about the time of the layoff because of the tense used by West, that they "were laying off"
rather than "had laid off " the Keller operators , and because West admitted , without fixing
the date, that it was ' shortly" after they were laid off
13 This was the first time in 2i// years that the respondent had run out of Keller work,
with no immediate prospect for more West testified that be learned of this condition just
a few days before the layoff and that he berated Martin for having allowed the work to run
out West explained that lie had been pci mitting his son to manage the business until
about the middle of January , when his son received notice of induction into the army, that
thereafter much of his time was spent in meetings with the War Labor Board and this
Board until after the representation hearing
1; This was not a i ush job and it came to the shop in two pieces at separate times Wenzel,
although called a foreman . had iegularly worked a shift on the Keller machine along with
the other Keller operators.
ii Sharp did not get a release or work elsewhere, as he went into militaiy service."
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leases and got other employment) at least until their case was decided by the
Board as stated in their letters. Instead of recalling the Keller operators, the
respondent had patterns makers or their apprentices along with Wenzel operate
the Keller machines 16 No one was thereafter hired exclusively as a Keller opera-
tor. One of his reasons for not hiring Keller operators after February 3, as West
testified, was because the Pattern Makers had said that they would not work on
pattern work unless the work was performed by members of their union and he
anticipated trouble if he hired new employees who were not Pattern Makers. He
further testified that he would have regarded the laid-off Keller operators as new
employees from the time that they procured their releases, and that, as such, the
Pattern Makers would not allow him to rehire them," although prior to that date
he would have employed them if he had had work for them regardless of the atti-
tude or action of the Pattern Makers.
Conclusions
The undersigned entertains no doubt that there was, on February 2 and 3, 1944,
a shortage of Keller work in the plant Some of the evidence arouses suspicion
that the respondent deliberately induced such shortage by delaying the preliminary
pattern work and by neglecting to seek new orders1e However, after a considera-
tion of all the evidence, the undersigned concludes and finds that the evidence is
not sufficient to establish such design on the part of the respondent.
If there was, then, a genuine shortage of Keller work, there was occasion bor
the lay-off of the Keller operators. The question is whether, in the absence of a
prospective strike, the occurrence of which was temporarily delayed but the like-
lihood of which was not dispelled, the respondent would have laid off the Keller
operators even if there were a prospect of a shortage of Keller work. To lay them
is Most of these mien were already in the employ of the respondent, but two pattern mak-
ers lured on September 27, 1944, having had Keller experience, were also used on the
Kellers The respondent had never hired auione as in experienced Keller operatoi. They
had customarily been trained by the respondent The rate for Keller operators at the
respondent's plant was $1 30 to $1 60 per hour, the minimum rate for patteni makers was
$1 90 per hour After April 26, 1944, the Keller machines were operated on two shifts The
respondent used the pattern makers on the Kellers despite the fact that it needed more pat-
tern makers and had an order with the Pattern 'Makers for 200 pattern makers In the
representation case, West asked "When you have asked the pattern workers [union] for
a large number of additional pattern makers and then cannot finish them, then it is not
possible, is it, for you to do all this work with pattein makers, if they do not furnish them "
He replied that that was correct The Pattern Makers conceded that they were unable to
supply the respondent with the amen desired by the respondent
ii Martin testified that he had not called the Keller men back when there was work for
them because they wcie erthei in the Army or were working in other plants and because
lie had been instructed never to take men away from other plants, as that would be regarded
as "pirating labor " West himself did not offer "labor piracy" as at reason for his failure
to recall the men When first asked his reason, he testified that as the men lurid quit and
were either in the army or working in other plants he "did not see any reason for recalling
them " The undersigned finds that a fear of being regarded as it "labor pirate" was not
among the real reasons for West's failure to recall the Keller operators
"At the conclusion of the representation case, West, addressing the Trial Examiner,
said "There is only one thing that I would be interested in We are taking contracts from
time to time In fact, I have one for the supercharger that we have been holding up because
we don't want to have it partly finished and have it tied up It is too urgent to the country.
I would like to sort of have it general idea as to when this is going to come off, so I will
know what I can take on, so I can keep the shop running until that time . . . It
would be very good business on my part, not taking into account patriotism to not take
anything on " Extensive evidence was adduced at the hearing in the instant case to show
that existing Keller work actually was completed on February 3 and that there was no
delay in the pattern work in the shop except for engineering changes
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1485
off would very probably be to lose the ability to recall them, since, with an existing
labor shortage in war plants, it won](] be extremely unlikely that the Keller
operators would remain unemployed, and there was a fair chance that the men
could earn as much or more elsewhere and would be unwilling to return. Keller
operators would not be easily replaceable None were available for employment,
and it would take 21/, to 31/2 years to train new men and give them the experience
of the men being laid off. During 1943 and 1944, the respondent had twice filed
affidavits for deferment of Parks and Hill On the affidavit for Parks' defer-
ment of January 20, 1943, the respondent stated, "We have an application in at
the War Manpower Commission to raise him to the standard journeyman rate of
$1.60 per hour at this time to try and keep him from leaving to go to other plants."
On the affidavit for Hill's deferment made out on the day of Hill's lay-off, the
respondent stated, in response to a question of what steps had been taken to secure
or train a replacement for Hill, "The Pattern Makers Union will not allow us to
hire none but patternmakers to operate the Kellers, but they cannot furnish any
at this time." True, the big job for the Wright Aeronautical Company would not
be ready for the Keller machines for 2 or 3 months, but that did not mean that jobs
could not be procured in the interim. In 21/2 years there had been only short
periods without Keller work. The respondent actually got two jobs of exclusively
Keller work between February 3 and May 1. To the undersigned this does not
necessarily represent the volume of business that the respondent would have had
for the Keller machines. With only one or two men left in the shop capable of
efficient operation of the Keller machines, the respondent would have been unable
to take on any rush jobs.19 In wartime most jobs are rush jobs. On the record
for the 21/2 years preceding, it should have appeared likely to the respondent that
it would not have been short of Keller work for more than a week, a period of idle-
ness for which it had not, since 1939 or 1940, laid any Keller operator off. But
without waiting for a week or even a day of idleness, the respondent laid off the
Keller operators 20 If the respondent was making diligent efforts to procure
Keller work, it must have had reasonable expectation of procuring it. Laying off
the Keller operators with such promptness indicates either that the respondent
desired to lose their services or that it had better reasons than the circumstances
above would justify for believing that no Keller work would be ordered soon, that
is to say that it intended not to seek rush jobs
When the foregoing facts are coupled with the fact that the Pattern Makers
had exhibited l:oiltility to members of the Union, had threatened to strike if any
work was done on patterns by Keller operators, and were only being held i'i
restraint temporarily, and the fact that West knew and had expressed his hesi-
tancy to take on new work while the prospect of a strike hung over him, the
conclusion is inescapable that the respondent was influenced to a material degree,
in laying oft the Keller operators, by the fact that the Keller operators were
members of the Union rather than of the Pattern Makers, and the undersigned
so finds The fact that West had expressed himself as willing to deal with the
Union if he could do so without conflicting with the claims of the Pattern
Makers and probably would not have discriminated against the Keller operators
but for the apparently unreasonable attitude of the Pattern Makers makes the
lay-off of the Keller operators no less a discrimination within the meaning of
the Act.
The respondent contends that when the Keller operators procured their re-
leases and obtained employment elsewhere they resigned and were no longer
10 Neither the Hotchkiss nor the Parsons-Merrit job was a rush job.
20 In periods of idleness, the Keller machine parts would be covered with grease, but this
would not be done for about a sleek, thus indicating that more jobs could be contemplated
within that time.
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the respondent and that consequently there was no discriminatory
refusal to reinstate them. Even if the original ]ay-off were not discriminatory,
however, the undersigned believes there would be no merit in this contention.
While a request for a release may be evidence of an intent to resign, it is not
of itself necessarily a resignation. Other circumstances known to the parties.
may require an entirely differ ent interpretation of the act of requesting a
release. In this case, at the time of requesting their release, the Keller operators
asked if there was work, indicating that they desired to work for the respondent
Their purpose in getting releases was not because they wished to terminate
their employment with the respondent but because the respondent had no work
available and the men hqd to have employment The Keller operators regarded
their lay-off as discriminatory and therefore anticipated that unless their
charge was determined favorably to them by the Board the respondent would
not offer them reinstatement. The respondent knew or should have known
this from the filing of the charge, from a statement which Parks made to West,.
according to the latter's own testimony, that he thought he was laid off for
reasons other than lack of work, and from the written requests which the Keller
operators made for their releases Under the circumstances the undersigned
finds that the Keller operators by requesting releases and working elsewhere
did not intend to and did not in fact terminate their employee status with the
respondent.
The respondent did not allege nor contend that the Keller operators were,
either laid off or discharged on the ground that it was required by the existence
of a closed-shop contract with the Pattern Makers But the respondent claimed
that, once the Keller men had their releases and procured other employment, the
contract would be a bar to their reemployment. For almost 7 years the contract
had existed but had not been asserted as denying to Keller operators the right
of employment. From the time that Parks became a regular Keller operator,
non-members of the Pattern Makers had been used on the Keller machines.
The Pattern Makers had, between 1940 and 1942, permitted four or five new men.
to accept employment with no knowledge that their employment was limited in
any way. The Keller operators were not eligible to join the Pattern Makers, and
to all appearances the contract was inapplicable to them As to these men, at
least, any claim that their employee status is affected by a closed-shop contract
is untenable 21 So long as they retained their status as employees the Keller
operators were entitled to employment when work was available.
While West testified that he would have recalled the Keller operators when.
work was available if they had not procured their releases, the undersigned:
believes that, had the lay-off on February 2 and 3, 1944, been non-discriminatory,
the respondent would have notified the Keller operators when there was work
and would then have reinstated them if they were available z_ He knew that
to recall the Keller operators when there was work, however, would be again to,
21 The Pattern Makers conceded that their contract did not cover Keller operators ; hence
they did not have a closed shop `Vest claimed a collateral agreement with the Pattern
Makers by which the latter agreed not to "bother" the Keller operators. The Pattern
Makers claimed in the representation case that this v,as a mere "courtesy" and during the
prior two years it was a war measure and that for that reason the issue had not been raised.
In view of the circumstances set forth above, the undersigned regards the contract provi-
sions as waived as to the Keller operators already employed.
22 Not only was there evidence that the respondent had in the past recalled employees
who had been laid off, but West admitted that he would have recalled the Keller operators
when there was work for them had they not procured their releases and worked , elsewhere
Under the circumstances the undersigned finds that independently of whether or not their
lay-off was discriminatory from the start there was no affirmative duty on the Keller oper-
ators to make application for reinstatement before the respondent notified them that there
was work available for them.
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1487
arouse the conflict with the Pattern Makers." He knew that the Pattern Makers
had refused to accept the Keller operators as members and he understood that'
the Keller operators' joining of the Union had precipitated the Pattern Makers'
ultimatum and threat of strike. When the Keller operators were laid off, West
knew that sooner or later they would need other employment; he even sought
apparently without their request to place them with a competing pattern shop.
He knew they would need releases to work in such a place, thus indicating that
he desired to create the situation where he could rely upon the technical excuse
of a release to avoid the necessity of recalling the Keller operators. Had the
respondent not intended to rid itself of the Keller operators and the labor diffi-
culties attending their employment, it is unbelievable that West would have
sought to place such valuable and needed employees with a competitor with no
assurance that they would be made reavailable to him when he needed them.
The undersigned concludes and finds that, at the time the Keller operators were
laid off, the respondent intended not to reemploy them if it could legally avoid it
and that the procuring of releases by four of the Keller operators was not the real
reason for failing to recall them.21 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the
lay-offs were not on account of lack of work but were on account of union mem-
bership of the Keller operators.
It is therefore found that by laying off the five Keller operators on February
2 and 3, 1944, and by failing and refusing to reinstate those available on and
after April 26, 1944, when there was work available, the respondent has dis-
couraged membership in the Union and has encouraged membership in the Pattern
Makers by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of such
Keller operators and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.2i
1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR T.AnOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described 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 certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
23 The fact that the Pattern Makers had agreed to hold their ultimatum in abeyance pend-
ing a decision by the Board of the representation case cannot be ielied upon by the respond-
ent as removing the threat, for, as West testified, the Pattern 'Makers would have regarded
the Keller operators as new employees after February 21, 1944, and appaiently would have
struck if they w ere reemplol ed Whether of not this was in fact the attitude of the Pattern
Makers is immaterial , West's belief that it was is what determined his, conduct
24 Since Sharp went into the army befoi e procuring other employment, the respondent
could not legally avoid reinstating hint in any event, and the undersigned regards West's
avowed willingness to reinstate Sharp when he is dismissed from military service as based
upon legal compulsion rather than as a willingness to reinstate Sharp merely because he
did not obtain a i elease and work elsewhere
25 The respondent at the hearing suggested that in deciding the issues in this case the
undersigned should give consideration to a statement of the Trial Examiner in the repre-
sentation case that the respondent was in a difficult situation and that if anything should
happen thereafter as a result of that situation it would certainly not be on West ' s shoulders.
Such statement was entirely outside the issues in the representation ease and can have no
bearing on the issue of unfair labor practices in this case The undersigned finds no merit
in a contention , if any was intended , that such statement would justify or minimize subse-
quent unfair labor practices.
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the lay-off of Parks . White, Hill, Shafran, and
Sharp was an unfair labor practice, it will be recommended that the respondent
otter them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions ,'' without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges , and make Parks , White, and Shafran whole for any loss they may
have suffered by reason of the respondent ' s discrimination against them by pay-
nient to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of their respective lay-off to the (late of
the respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings -? during such
period.
hill and Sharp entered military service of the United States after the time
of their lay -offs. As to them it will be recommended that the respondent, upon
application by each within ninety ( 90) (lays after his discharge from the armed
forces of the United States, offer each reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss lie may have suffered by reason
of the respondent 's discrimination against hum by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during
the periods ( 1) betiieon Februniy 2. 1944 , and the date of his induction and (2)
between a date five ( 5) (lays after the timely application for reinstatement of
each , respectively, and the date of the respondent ' s offer of reinstatement to him,
less his net earnings -" during these periods.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (CIO), and Pattern Makers' Association
of Detroit, Pattern Makers' League of North America, A. F. L. are labor organ-
izations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles
Parks, Walter Hill, Donald White, Frank Shafran, and Milton Sharp, the respond-
ent 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 affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
26 Parks and White at first testified that they would not want their jobs back with the
respondent unless they had representation and increased pay It was brought out, how-
ever, that they believed the Board could decide not only their right to representation but
also then rate of pay When the) were informed otherwise, each testified that he would
'want reinstatement, in the event the Board ordered the respondent to offer it, without quali-
fication Such offer would necessaiili be dependent upon the existence of work, but spice
these was evidence that the respondent has certain non-automatic machines capable of
doing work similar to that clone on the Keller machines , "the existence of work" will be
defined as work which, in the normal course of business, the respondent would, prior to
February 3, 1044, have caused to be clone on the hiller machines
27ISv "net earnuigs" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for tiansportation, 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 and United l3rotheiliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill WorLers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for
work peifoimed upon Federal, State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall
be considered .is Parini,, See Republic Steel Cmpo7ahon v N L R B , 311 U S 7
11 See footnote 27, Anpra.
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1489
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce 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 co-partnership, Fred S. West, Fred
C. West, and Leonard R. West, doing business as Peerless Pattern Works, dud
respondent's officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or laying off employees because of union membership and
refusing to reinstate them, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of its employees because they engaged in
concerted activities or other mutual aid or protection thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties 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
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Charles Parks, Donald White, and Frank Shafran immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges in the manner set
forth in the section entitled "The remedy" above ;
(b) Make whole said Parks, White, and Shafran for any loss they may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by paying
them in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" above foe any
loss of earnings they may have suffered ;
(c) Upon application by Walter Hill and Milton Sharp, each within ninety
(90) clays after his discharge from the armed forces of the United States, ofter
each reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges:
(d) Make whole Walter Hill and Milton Sharp each for any loss he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment
to him.of it stun of money equal to the amount which he normally would have
earned as wages during the periods (1) between February 2, 1914, and the date
of his induction into military service; 28 and (2) between five (5) days after his
tmiely application for reinstatement and the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings" during these periods ;
(e) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Seventh Region shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for a period of sixty (691 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom.nily
21 The sum here provided to be paid shall be paid to each immediately without waiting a
final determination of the full amount of his award
60 See footnote 27, supra.
G70417-4G-vol 64-95
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan)
n writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report,
of what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith
It is further recommended that unless on or be>aore ten (10) (lays from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that they have complied with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Boara issue an order requiring the respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
rational Labor Relations Board-Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944-
any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date 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, Wash-
ington, 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 objections), as lie relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further
provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within
ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
JAMES R HE\MINGWAY.
Trial Exam.aaier.
Dated April 10, 1945.
APPENDIX A
NLRB 577
(9-1-44) NoricE ro ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to Recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 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 Local 212, International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, 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 re-
instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and piivileges previously enjoyed
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
Charles Parks
Donald White
Frank Shafran
Walter Hill
Milton Sharp
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
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS 1491
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
organization.
PEERLESS PATTERN WORKS,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By --------------- ----------------
(Representative) (Title)
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 ac-
cordance 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.