The Wallace Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 285 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE WALLACE CORPORATION and UNITED CONSTRUC-
TION WORKERS (DISTRICT 50), U. M. W. A.
Case No. 9-C-1786.-Decided May 27, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 22, 1946, 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 rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to notice, and at the request of
the respondent, the Board heard oral argument on May 9, 1946, in
Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared and participated in the
argument; no other party appeared.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharge of Lawrence
Persinger on or about December 9, 1942, because of his failure to main-
tain membership in and pay dues to the Independent, was violative of
Section 8 (3) of the Act. Since it has previously been found that the
Independent was a labor organization dominated, interfered with, and
supported by the respondent in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act,"
the closed-shop contract between the respondent and the Independent was
invalid and the discharge of Persinger pursuant to the terms of this
contract was not protected by the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act .2
' Matter of The Wallace Corporation , 50 N. L. R. B. 138, enf'd 141 F. (2d) 87 (C. C A 4),
323 U S 248
2 See, e. g., Sperry Gyroscope Company, Inc. v N. L. R. B, 129 F (2d) 922 (C. C. A. 2),
enf'g 36 N L R B 1349, Corning Glass Works v. N L. R. B , 118 F. (2d) 625, enf'g as
rood 15 N. L. R. B 598; N . L R. B. v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., 315 U S. 685.
68 N. L. R. B., No. 33.
285
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Having found that the respondent discharged Persinger in viola-
tion of Section 8 (3) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist
from engaging in such conduct. Since there is already outstanding
against the respondent a decree enjoining it, among other things, to
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, we do not believe it necessary, in order to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act, to include the same provision in our Order.3
In addition to ordering the respondent to cease and desist from the il-
legal conduct in which it has engaged, we shall order the respondent to
reinstate Persinger with back pay, such action being designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act. However, in the circumstances of this
case, set forth in the Intermediate Report, we shall limit the award of
back pay to the period from February 6, 1946, the date of the issuance
of the complaint herein, to the date of the respondent's offer of rein-
statement, less Persinger's net earnings during such period.
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, The Wallace Corporation,
Richwood, West Virginia, and its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs shall:
1. Cease and desist from encouraging membership in the Richwood
Clothespin and Dishworkers Union, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging any employee pursuant to any contrac-
tual provision requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in
any labor organization which has been established, maintained, or as-
sisted by any action defined in the Act as an unfair labor practice, or
in any successor thereto.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Lawrence Persinger immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Lawrence Persinger for loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages from February 6, 1946, the date.of
the issuance of the complaint herein, to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period
2 Matter of Alabama Fuel & Iron Company, 62 N. L. R B. 762.
THE WALLACE CORPORATION 287
(c) Post at its plant at Richwood, West Virginia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth 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
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 Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
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 encourage membership in the Richwood Clothespin
and Dishworkers Union or any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging any employees pursuant to any contrac-
tual provision requiring, as a condition of employment, membership
in any labor organization which has been established, maintained,
or assisted by any action defined in the Act as an unfair labor
practice, or in any successor thereto.
We will offer to the employee named below immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination in the manner set forth in the
Board's Decision and Order.
Lawrence Persinger
THE WALLACE CORPORATION,
Employer.
By ...................................
(Representative (Title)
Dated .......................
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harold M. Weston, for the Board.
Wolverton & Callaghan, by Mr. Brooks B. Callaghan and Mrs. Irene Weese
Groves, of Richwood, W. Va, for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on January 2, 1943, by United Construction Workers
(District 50), United Mine Workers of America, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated February 6,
1946, against The Wallace Corporation, Richwood, West Virginia, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent 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 and the charge and 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:
(1) that on or about December 12, 1942, the respondent discharged employee
Lawrence Persinger because of his failure to maintain membership in the Rich-
wood Clothespin and Dish Workers Union, herein called the Independent, a labor
organization initiated and sponsored by the respondent in violation of Section 8 (2)
of the Act; and (2) by the acts described above, respondent interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
On or about February 27, 1946, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint,
denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Summersville, West Virginia, on
March 12, 1946, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and respondent were represented by counsel.
All parties 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, counsel for the Board moved,
without objection, that the pleadings be amended in formal matters to conform
to the proof. The motion was granted. Oral argument by counsel for the parties
was heard at the close of the hearing which was included in the transcript of the
proceedings. While the parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the
undersigned, no briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Missouri corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of clothespins, wood, and paper food trays. It operates a plant at
Richwood, West Virginia, which is the only one involved in this proceeding. The
principal raw material used is wood, nearly all of which originates in the State
of West Virginia. During the year immediately preceding the hearing, the respon-
dent purchased and processed at its Richwood plant raw materials valued in
excess of $100,000. During the same period the respondent sold and distributed
from its Richwood plant products valued in excess of $200,000, over 75 percent
THE WALLACE CORPORATION 289
of which was shipped to points outside the State of West Virginia. The respondent
concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and the
Board has heretofore so found.'
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers (District 50), United Mine Workers of America,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent, and
Richwood Clothespin and Dishworkers Union, unaffiliated, was prior to its dis-
establishment as provided by an order of the Board,2 a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The discriminatory discharge of
Lawrence Persinger
(a) Events antedating the discharge3
The record herein, in brief, discloses : (1) that during the summer of 1941 the
United Construction Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the United,
began organization activities at the respondent's Richwood plant; (2) during
September 1941 it demanded recognition which was denied; (3) a strike was
called by United on September 25, 1941, and continued until January 13, 1942;
(4) during the first week in October 1941, the Independent came into existence;
(5) on January 13, 1942, the respondent, the United, and the Independent signed
an agreement providing, inter alia, for immediate resumption of plant operations
and for the conduct of an election by the Board to determine whether the United
or the Independent represented a majority of the respondent's employees; (6) by
such agreement the respondent agreed to enter into a closed-shop agreement with
the organization that won the election ; (7) on January 19, 1942, the respondent
and the United entered into an agreement, approved by the Board's Regional
Director, which provided, inter alia, for the settlement and withdrawal of charges
theretofore filed by the United; (8) also on January 19, 1942, the respondent, the
United, and the Independent, entered into a separate consent election agreement,
approved by the Board's Regional Director, which designated both unions as candi-
dates for representative in an election to be held on January 30, 1942; (9) at the
election the Independent received a majority of the votes cast;4 (10) on February
4, 1942, the Regional Director in his Report on Election found and determined
that the Independent had been designated exclusive bargaining representative by a
majority of the employees; (11) no objections were filed to such Report on Election;
(12) and under date of March 7, 1942, the respondent entered into a closed-shop
contract with the Independent.
150 N. L. R. B. 138.
s See next preceding footnote.
'The record made herein was stipulated by the parties and no witnesses were called. The
parties also stipulated that judicial notice of the Board's Decision and Order in Matter of
The Wallace Corporation, 50 N. L. R. B. 138, together with the Decision of the Circuit Court
of Appeals, 141 F. (2d) 87, and the Decision of the U S. Supreme Court, 323 U S. 248,
in the said case, be taken. The findings made herein are based in part upon the findings of the
Board in the above case.
' Of 207 elegible employees, 98 voted for the Independent , 83 for the United , and 5 votes
were cast for neither.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 18, 1942, the respondent discharged 43 employees who were mem-
bers of the United for the reason that they had not become members of the
Independent. As a result of the 43 discharges the United, on June 25, 1942, filed
a second amended charge upon which the Board issued its complaint alleging
that the respondent had violated Section 8 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act During
July 1942, a hearing upon such complaint was held before a Trial Examiner for
the Board. On September 2, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were served upon all the parties, in which he found that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
(b) The discharge
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Persinger was discriminatorily dis-
charged by the respondent on or about December 12, 1942, because of his failure
to maintain membership in the Independent, a labor organization initiated and
sponsored by the respondent in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
The answer admitted that the respondent discharged Persinger on or about De-
cember 12, 1942, and alleged that it did so pursuant to the terms of the then
existing closed-shop contract described above.
Persinger was employed from on or about June 30, 1941 , until on or about
December 9, 1942, when he was discharged on the request of the Independent for
non-payment of dues Persinger had joined the Independent, paid initiation fees and
dues and remained a member thereof until he became in arrears in the payment
of dues. At the time of his discharge he was employed as a trucker in the wood
pin department. On January 2, 1943, the Union filed a charge alleging that Per-
singer's discharge was a discriminatory one. During January 1943, the Board's
Regional Director proposed to respondent's counsel that the Board and the
respondent, by stipulation, incorporate the charges alleging discrimination against
Persinger, in the prior proceeding against the respondent, then pending before the
Board Respondent's counsel refused to so stipulate and the issuance of the com-
plaint herein was held in abeyance until said prior proceeding was fully litigated
(c) Events occuring subsequent
to the discharge
Following the issuance and service of the Intermediate Report , above referred
to, and the filing of exceptions thereto the Board, under date of Tune 7, 1943,5 found
(1) that the Independent had been set up, maintained , and used by the respondent
to frustrate the unionization of its plant by the United ; and (2 ) the "union
shop" contract was made by the respondent with knowledge that the Independent
intended to use the contract as a means of bringing about the discharge of former
United members by denying them membership in the Independent . The Board
held, inter alia, that the conduct of the respondent in both instances constituted
unfair labor practices . It ordered the respondent to disestablish the Independent
and to cease and desist from giving effect to the closed -shop contract The Circuit
Court of Appeals ordered enforcement of the Board 's Orders Subsequently the
Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court
of Appeals "approving the order of the Board in its entirety."7
550 N. L. R. B. 138.
141 F. (2d) 87.
323 U. S. 248.
THE WALLACE CORPORATION
(d) Contentions of the respondent
as to the discharge
291
The respondent contends in substance and effect: (1) that it was obligated by
its agreement with the United and Independent to enter into a closed-shop agree-
ment with the organization which won the election; and (2) that while the Board
and the Courts held the closed-shop contract to be illegal and to have been entered
into with an organization that had been established, maintained, and assisted by the
respondent, such holding was based on the premise that certain employees had been
discharged "because of prior union activity," an element not present in Persinger's
case, since he had joined the Independent and paid dues for a time.
It is clear from the record that the validity of the closed-shop contract was
fully litigated in the first case and determined adversely to the respondent. The
Board and the Courts found the contract to be illegal and one entered into with a
creature of the respondent. The fact that 43 employees were discharged "because
of prior union activity" and Persinger was discharged because of his failure to
maintain membership in a "company dominated" organization is immaterial as in
both instances the employees were discharged pursuant to the terms of an illegal
contract. Since the contract is illegal the respondent cannot rely upon the provisos
to Section 8 (3) of the Act as a defense
This contention is without merit.
(e) Conclusions as to the discharge
From the foregoing and the record, it appears and the undersigned finds, that
the respondent discharged Lawrence Persinger on or about December 9, 1942, be-
cause of his failure to maintain membership in and pay dues to the Independent,
a labor organization theretofore initiated and sponsored by the respondent; that
by said discharge it discriminated with respect to Persinger's hire and tenure of
employment and conditions of employment, thereby encouraging membership in
the Independent and discouraging membership in the United, and interfering with,
restraining and coercing 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's business described in Section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
8 Provided, That nothing in this Act, . . shall preclude an employer from making an
agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained , or assisted by any action
defined in this Act as an unfair labor practice) to require, as a condition of employment,
membership therein,
696966-46-20
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Lawrence Persinger by discharging him because of
his failure and refusal to maintain his membership in the Independent, a labor
organization initiated and sponsored by the respondent in violation of the Act for
the purpose of encouraging membership in the Independent and discouraging mem-
bership in the Union In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is recom-
mended that the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and that it make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him,, by payment
to him of a sum of money equivalent to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from December 9, 1942, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings9 during said period
In view of the unfair labor practices found to have been committed by the
respondent, constituting violation of Section 8 (1) as well as Section 8 (3) of the
Act, each of which violations grew out of the respondent's violation of Section
8 (2) and (3) as found by the Board in the first case, the undersigned is of the
opinion and finds that there is danger of the commission of other and additional
unfair labor practices in the future. The unfair labor practices thus far engaged in
by the respondent have led to discrimination of such a degree as would cause the
average employee to conclude that any union or concerted activity on his part
would lead to a loss of his job. This disclosed attitude of the respondent toward
organization by its employees and the continuing threat which it implies, requires
a cease and desist order as broad as the threat.
It will therefore be recommended that the respondent cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in their
rights to self-organization for the purposes of collective bargaining as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act 10
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Construction Workers (District 50) United Mine Workers of America,
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 Lawrence
Persinger, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent
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.
6 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 elsewhere 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 Com-
pany, 8 N L R B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county , municipal,
or other work-i elief projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation T.
Al jr, R 73 311 U S 7.
ao See May Department Stores Company, etc. v. N L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376; Matter of
Washington National Insurance Co., 64 N. L. R. B. 929; Matter of C. D. Beck & Company.
63 N. L. R. B. 1426; Matter of Carolina Mills, Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 200.
THE WALLACE CORPORATION 293
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 above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that The Wallace Corporation, Richwood, West Virginia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers (District 50),
United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any terms or
conditions of employment;
(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 or assist United Construction Workers (District 50), United Mine
Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities 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 Lawrence Persinger immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the said Lawrence Persinger for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have
earned as wages during the period from December 9, 1942, the date of his discharge,
to the date of respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such
period;
(c) Post at its plant at Richwood, West Virginia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice , to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Ninth 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 sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custo-
marily 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) File with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, on or before ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report, in writing, setting
forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the
foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board 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
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen ( 15) days from the
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, 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 objections) 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 excep-
tions and/or the 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 permission to argue orally before the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
PETER F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 22, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions 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 United Construction Workers (District 50), U. M. W A., 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 reinstatement
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
Lawrence Persinger
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
organization.
THE WALLACE CORPORATION,
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.