Wright Hibbard Industrial Electric Truck Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of WRIGHT-IIIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO.,
INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
Case No. 3-C-784.-Decided April 29, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 11, 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 therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, on December 31, 1945, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report without a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respon-
dent's exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the modifications hereinafter noted.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that in discharging the
employees listed in Appendices A, B, and C of the Intermediate
Report under the circumstances revealed therein, the respondent vio-
lated Section 8 (3) of the Act. We shall order the respondent to
make whole these employees for losses incurred because of the respond-
ent's discrimination. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that
it is possible that one, or more of these employees might have been
affected in their employment even absent the respondent's unfair
labor practices. Under the circumstances, therefore, this possibility
will be taken into consideration in determining the amount due to
these employees in compliance with our Order herein.' We also
expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement
provisions of our Order if made necessary by a change of conditions
in the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter
' See Matter of Bermite Powder Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 678 ; Matter of Brown's Tie d
Lumber Company , 66 N. L . R B. 637.
67 N. L. R. B., No. 110.
692148-46-vol. 67-58 897
'898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a
specific set of circumstances not now appearing.2
2. Although the Intermediate Report mentions Supervisor Sebring's
testimony that employee Main was not a satisfactory employee, the
Trial Examiner also states that the record reveals no evidence that
Main was not a satisfactory worker. The record discloses that during
the first 4 months of 1945 there were 6 weeks in which Main worked
substantially less than 55 hours, the established work week at the
respondent's plant, and that he had at some time read books or other
literature at his machine. On the other hand, so far as appears, the
respondent did not complain to Main about these matters ; and Main
received two merit increases during the year of his employment at the
respondent's plant. Like the Trial Examiner, we therefore reject
the respondent's contention that Main was discharged for inefficiency
or absenteeism.
3. The Intermediate Report states that employees Brokaw and
Lockemeyer were admittedly superior workers. The record discloses
no more than that they were admittedly efficient workers. We hereby
correct the misstatement, which does not affect our decision herein.
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, Wright-Hibbard Industrial
Electric Truck Co., Inc., Phelps, New York, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Ma-
chinists, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
ing or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by discriminating
in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment with
International Association of Machinists as the exclusive representa-
tive of all its production and maintenance employees, excluding office,
clerical, and supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommended such action;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join
2 Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 64 N. L . R. B. 824 ; cf. N. L . R. B. v. New
York Merchandtiee Company, Inc., 134 F. (2d) 949 (C. C. A. 2).
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 899
or assist International Association of Machinists or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
,own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : 8
(a) Offer to Ralph Briggs, Anthony Burnisky, Kenneth Coons,
Clarence Guard, Willis Kregloh, Frank Lannon, George Peake, Wal-
ter Guiggle, George Walthert, Jacob Lockemeyer, Leslie Brokaw, Carl
Main. and John Hicks immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth
in Section V, "The Remedy," of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto ;
(b) Make whole Ralph Briggs, Anthony Burnisky, Kenneth Coons,
Clarence Guard, Willis Kregloh, Frank Lannon, George Peake, Wal-
ter Guiggle, George Walthert, Jacob Lockemeyer, Leslie Brokaw, Carl
Main, John Hicks, Prosper Bankert, Paul Iddings, Edward O'Coyne,
Warren Knauss, Willard Coons, Lloyd Johnson, Frank Overslaugh,
Harold Siegwalt, Arthur Hughson, Walter Kennedy, Daniel Robyn,
and Calvin Utter for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by
reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages during the applicable period, in
the manner set forth in Section V, "The Remedy," of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto, less his net earnings during that period; 4
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment
with International Association of Machinists as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its production and maintenance employees, excluding
office, clerical, and supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
,of employees, or effectively recommend such action;
(d) Post at its Phelps, New York, plant, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by
The Board expressly reserves the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement
provisions if made necessary by a change of circumstances in the future , and to make
such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify
their application to a specific set of circumstances not now appearing.
4 In determining the amounts due under this provision of the Order , consideration shall
be given to the possibility that one or more of the named employees might have been dis-
charged in the general reduction of the work force, even if the respondent 's selection had
been made on a non-discriminatory basis.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We 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 International Asso-
ciation of Machinists 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 bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination :
Ralph Briggs Frank Lannon Jacob Lockemeyer
Anthony Burnisky George Peake Leslie Brokaw
Kenneth Coons Walter Guiggle Carl Main
Clarence Guard George Walthert John Hicks
We will mace whole the employee named below for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination :
Prosper Bankert Willard Coons Arthur Hughson
Paul Iddings Lloyd Johnson Walter Kennedy
Edward O'Coyne Frank Overslaugh Daniel Robyn
Warren Knauss Harold Siegwalt Calvin Utter
We will bargain collectively, upon request, with International
Association of Machinists as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 901
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and if an agreement is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: all
production and maintenance employees at our Phelps, New York,
Plant, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate 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.
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC.
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 accordance with the Selective service Act after
discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Francis Y. Heigesen, for the Board.
JIr. James 1I. Ryan, of Geneva, N. Y., for the respondent.
Mr. H. I. Smith, of Buffalo, N'. Y, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by International Association of Machinists,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), issued
its complaint dated July 1fi, 1945, against Wright-Hibbard Industrial Electric
Truck Co Inc, Phelps, N. Y, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfa}r labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) 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 the respondent : (1) commencing about April 14, 1945, discouraged and
coerced its employees against affiliation with or activity on behalf of the Union,
questioned them regarding such affiliation and activity, disparaged the Union,
induced and compelled them to seek withdrawals from the Union, and advised
them that they would receive no benefits from collective bargaining through the
Union; (2) on April 21, 1945, discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Carl
Main, Jacob Lockemeyer, and Leslie Brokaw because of their union membership
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and concerted activity ; (3) on April 24, 1945, discharged and until various dates
between April 27 and May 11, refused to reinstate 11 named employees because
of their union membership, concerted activities, and having on April 23, gone on
strike in protest against the discharges of April 21; (4) on April 24, discharged
and until April 27, refused to reinstate Lloyd Johnson because he had assisted
the Union, engaged in concerted activities, and gone on strike for the same reason ;
(5) on April 24, discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate 8 named employees
because of their union membership, concerted activities, and having gone on strike
for the same reason and Ralph Briggs because he had assisted the Union, engaged
in concerted activities, and had for the same reason, gone on strike; (6) on April
25, discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate John Hicks because of his
union membership and activity ; and (7) by such acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
The respondent thereafter filed an answer dated July 24, 1945, denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Phelps, New York, on August 30 and
31, 1945, before the undersigned Josef L. Hektoen, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by its representative; all participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence Bearing on the issues was afforded to all parties.
On August 31, the motion of counsel for the Board to amend the complaint in a
minor particular was allowed without objection and the motion of counsel for
the respondent to dismiss the complaint was taken under advisement. The latter
is hereby denied. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board argued
orally before the undersigned. No briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Wright-Hibbard Industrial Electric Truck Co. Inc., is a New
York corporation maintaining its principal place of business and plant at Phelps,
New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric trucks and
parts therefor. During 1944, its purchased materials consisting mainly of steel
and castings, rubber, and electrical appliances, having a value of about $180,000,
approximately 50 percent thereof being shipped to it from points outside the
State of New York. During the same period, it sold finished products having a
value of about $480,000, approximately 90 percent thereof being shipped by it to
points outside the State of New York. The respondent concedes that it is engaged
in commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The sequence of events
On Saturday, April 14, 1945, without previous notice, the respondent posted a
notice in its plant stating that on and after April 16 all employees would be
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 903
required to work a full 55-hour week "in order to obtain the $1.00 per truck
which is paid each month for all new trucks shipped the previous month."'
On Monday, April 16, the employees 2 engaged in a work stoppage. Employee
Jacob Lockemeyer, spokesman for the employees, told Superintendent Myron
Sebring that they were disturbed by the notice and that they desired an increase
of 10 cents per hour to take the place of the bonus. Sebring telephoned R. F.
Hibbard, president of the respondent, and thereafter informed the men that
the respondent would penalize by a 5-day lay-off all who did not go to work at
once. Substantially all the employees nevertheless thereupon quit the plant
but at Sebring's urging agreed to return after lunch for a conference with Hib-
bard.
They did so, and at Sebring's suggestion, a committee consisting of employees
Lockemeyer, Frank Lannon, and Leslie Brokaw conferred with Hibbard, in-
formed him of the employees' demands, and obtained from him a compromise
of a 5-cent per hour increase with a 2-cent bonus to replace the former bonus
payment for all those who worked a full 55-hour week. It was accepted by
the employees who returned to work the following day, April 17.'
On the same day, April 17, employee Lannon conferred with Union Repre-
sentative Clark Goodrich respecting protection for the employees from the re-
spondent's possible future unilateral determinations of matters vitally affecting
them Goodrich gave Lannon a number of union application cards and advised
him to use the committee which had conferred with Hibbard the day before
as the nucleus about which to build the Union.
On April 18 and 19, Lannon and Brokaw obtained the signed applications of
25 employees' which Lannon thereafter mailed to Goodrich at the neighboring
town of Seneca Falls Goodrich received them on Saturday, April 21.
On April 21, the respondent summarily, and without explanation, discharged
employees Brokaw, Lockemeyer, and Carl Main'
On Monday, April 23, Superintendent Sebring arrived early at the plant and
locked the door. He explained at the hearing that while he was uncertain why
he had done so, he had desired to adjust the matter of a miscalculation in,^ay
during the preceding week with the employees before they entered the plant.
As they arrived for work, Sebring told the employees that the matter would
be adjusted The employees, however, asked him for an explanation of the
three Saturday discharges. He refused to vouchsafe one and after again tele-
phoning Hibbard, stated that employees who did not promptly go to work could
the same day get their pay and releases. All but about 10 employees thereupon
left the plant premises and went on strike.
Later the same morning , Representative Goodrich conferred with President
Hibbard. As is hereinafter found, the respondent at that conference refused
to bargain collectively with the Union in violation of the provisions of the Act.
On the same day, Hibbard sent to all employees who had not gone to work
that morning, by registered mail, a letter dated April 23, enclosing their pay
checks and releases, and stating in part, "As our present contract with the
'The $1 per truck bonus had theretofore been paid to each employee regardless of the
number of hours he worked
2 At this time the respondent employed 35 production and maintenance employees.
8 The record does not disclose that the respondent penalized by lay-off any employee for
failure to work on Monday , April 16.
4 Lannon prepared and executed a 26th application , that of employee Harold Heckman.
It is considered , infra, in connection with the respondent 's refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union.
5 Their discharges , which are hereinafter found to have constituted unfair labor prac-
tices by the respondent , are separately dealt with.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
government has practically expired, it is impossible for us to work all of our
previous force of men, and therefore it is for this reason we have found it
necessary to give you your release." The letters were received on April 24.
On April 25, the respondent discharged union employee John Hicks.
Between April 27 and May 11, the respondent reemployed 12 of the employees
whom it had discharged on April 24.
At the time of the hearing, the respondent employed 20 to 25 persons and the
plant was working a 55-hour week.
B Early interference with self-organization
Between April 16 and 21, Supervisor of Production Harry Fridley told em-
ploS,ee Clarence Guard in the plant, that President Hibbard had just "bawled
out" Fridley and suggested to Guard that if the employees desired a union they
organize a "shop union,"' Employee Anthony Burnisky credibly testified, and
the undersigned finds, that during this period Fridley made the same suggestion
to him and told him that Hibbard had shortly before criticized Fridley for
the activities of the Union in the plant. Hibbard's apprehension respecting
the Union is also demonstrated by the undenied testimony of Leonard Sabin;
which the undersigned accepts, that during the last week Sabin worked in the
plant, Fridley told him that Hibbard had been questioning him about the Union.
Employee Harold Heckman testified, and the undersigned finds, that at about
the time of the strike, Fridley told him that he had himself belonged to a union
and "did not think too much of the Union."
It is found that by the statements of Fridley to Guard, Burnisky, and Heck-
man, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discrimination against Lockemeyer, Brokaw, and Main
As related above, on April 21, the respondent without warning summarily
discharged Jacob Lockemeyer, Leslie Brokaw, and Cail Main. Superintendent
Sebring took the action on orders given him without explanation by President
Hibbard.
Lockemeyer and Bi okaw had worked steadily for the respondent since Octo-
ber 29, 1942, and November 15, 1943, respectively, and were earning 85 cents per
hour, exclusive of the 2-cent bonus, when discharged' No criticism of their work
was made by the respondent and they were admittedly superior workers. As
related above, Lockeieyer acted as spokesman for the employees on the oc-
casion of the first work stoppage on April 16, and thereafter, on the same day,
in the company of Brokaw and Lannon, conferred with and secured from Hibbard
a 5-cent raise and a 2-cent bonus tor the employees. During the following week,
both joined the Union and Brokaw, according to his undenied and corroborated
testimony, which the undersigned credits, obtained employee signatures to 20
or 21 union applications
According to Representative Goodrich's undenied and credible testimony,
which the undersigned accepts, President Hibbard at their April 23 meeting
told him among other things, that he had discharged Lockemeyer and Brokaw
because they were "trouble makers." The undersigned accepts Hibbard's state-
9 The finding is based upon Guard ' s undenied and credible testimony. Although he was
employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing, Fridley did not appear as a wit-
ness
° Sabin was a foreman in the plant until his resignation on April 21.
Each had received a number of merit increases during their tenure to reach that figure.
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 905 ,
ment as revealing the real reason for the respondent's discharging them and
accordingly finds that it rid itself of them on account of their concerted activi-
ties and union membership.
Main began work for the respondent on May 15, 1944, and received a 5-cent
merit increase in February 1945 Despite Sebring's testimony that he was not a
satisfactory worker, the record not only fails to disclose any warning to him by the
respondent respecting it, but is free of any evidence that his work was unaccept-
able. He took part in the April 16 work stoppage. On that morning, accord-
ing to Main's undenied testimony, which the undersigned accepts, Sebring told
him, as well as several other employees who were present, that if they joined
a union they would be assessed, be compelled to pay dues, and be under the
necessity of supporting strikes, and that a union would not help them. Main
replied that he had been a union member for 9 years. He joined the Union
on April 19
Although the respondent did not reveal its reason for discharging Main either
to him, or in its answer, or at the hearing, its apparent contention is that it
dispensed with his services on account of fear that Main's wages might become
the subject of garnishment proceedings by his creditors. The evidence discloses
that on two occasions Hibbard had assisted Main to meet certain demands upon
him, and that on April 20, 1945, a sanitarium at neighboring Clifford Springs
wrote the respondent that Main was indebted to it in the sum of $90 for obstet-
rical services rendered Mrs. Main some time previously. Goodrich testified, and
the undersigned finds, that during his April 23 conference with Hibbard, the
latter told him that the respondent had discharged Main because he did not pay
his bills.
Despite the persuasive chronology tending to support the respondent's con-
tention, the undersigned is convinced that in this case Hibbard did not reveal
his real reason for its action. In the past, he had been sympathetic and helpful
respecting Main's problems. On April 21, he did not so much as consult Main
respecting the letter or the validity of the indebtedness therein referred to,
and refused to divulge any reason for discharging Main. On Saturday of the
week during which the Union's successful drive had taken place he retaliated
by discharging two of the leading union protagonists, one of whom, Barokaw,
had personally been in large measure responsible for its success. In view of all
of the circumstances revealed in the record, including the respondent's unde-
viating opposition to the Union, both above and hereinafter found, and partic-
ularly Main's bold statement to Sebring that he had been a union member for
9 years, the undersigned is convinced that Hibbard ordered Main's simultaneous
discharge because of his having revealed himself as a potent menace to the
respondent's fixed purpose to break the back of the Union and that it rid
itself of him not because he purportedly owed a sanitarium money but because
Main was infected with the union virus to such degree as to make his further
presence in the plant intolerable to Hibbard. It is so found
It is further found that by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Lockemeyer, Brokaw, and Main, and by the statements of
Sebring to Alain and others, the respondent has interfered with, restrained;
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
D. The refusals to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged, the answer of the respondent admitted, the evidence-
establishes , and the undersigned finds, that all production and maintenance em-
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of the respondent, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, at all times
material herein constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority of the respondent's employees
within the appropriate unit
On April 21, 1945, the respondent employed 35 persons in the appropriate unit.
The Board introduced into evidence 25 applications for membership in the Union
signed by employees in such unit. One was dated April 18 and the remainder
April 19 °
The respondent sought to show that a number of those who executed such ap-
plications did so under "a misapprehension as to the nature of the document."
The evidence discloses merely that several employees understood that they were
put under no "obligation" by signing an application. In accordance with the
usage of the Union, no dues or initiation fees were collected of the applicants,
such payments becoming due only when and if the representation of the Union
was established and the employees affiliated with a local lodge or formed one of
their own. The applications are in the usual form, the evidence reveals no coer-
cion or misrepresentation in obtaining signatures thereto, and none of those exe-
cuting applications is shown to have been illiterate or under disability. The
respondent's contention is therefore found to be without merit and is rejected.
The undersigned finds that the Union was on April 19, 1945, and at all times
thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all of the respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The refusals to bargain
On the morning of April 23, 1945, Representative Goodrich conferred at the
plant with President Hibbard.'° Goodrich informed Hibbard that he was a repre-
sentative of the Union, and announced that he represented the respondent's pro-
duction and maintenance employees. Hibbard replied, "I doubt that very much."
'Goodrich then informed Hibbard that the Union had obtained applications from
the majority of the employees and that under the provisions of the Act, it was
the bargaining agent of all the employees. He then stated that he desired to
discuss the three discharges of the previous Saturday. Hibbard refused to dis-
cuss the discharges and stated that he had run the plant for many years and
would continue to do so without outside interference Goodrich thereupon in-
formed Hibbard that the respondent might "have an election, or go into a cross-
check of the payroll." Hibbard stated that he was not interested, that only five
.or six employees were working, that the rest could have worked had they desired
but because they did not, there was now no work for them After some further
conversation, the meeting closed on Goodrich's statement that the Union would
A twenty-sixth card , that of Harold Heckman , was revealed to have been executed on
his behalf by Frank Lannon . Although Heckman mailed a formal written resignation to
the Union on April 23, and thus indicated his pro forma acceptance of the situation, the
undersigned, in view of the majority established by the Union without the Heckman
application , considers it unnecessary to resolve the question of its validity and therefore
excludes it in arriving at the Union 's majority.
10 The findings in this section hereof are based upon the undenied and credible testimony
of Goodrich. '
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 907
-probably file unfair labor practice charges against the respondent and that of
-Hibbard "that no outsider was going to tell him how to run the business." ii
Under all of the circumstances revealed by the record, it is clear, and the under-
signed finds, that the respondent's refusal to recognize the Union and discuss
matters of mutual interest with its representative was not based upon honest
doubts as to its representation of the respondent's employees, but upon the fixed
plan and purpose of the respondent to frustrate the efforts to self-organization of
its employees and its positive rejection of the principles of collective bargaining.
The undersigned finds that the respondent, as a part of its campaign to disrupt
the Union, on and after April 23, 1945, failed and refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
-unit, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E. The strike; the discharges; continuing interference and refusals to bargain
1. The strike and the discharges
As related above, on the morning of April 23, the employees went out on strike
in protest against the unfair labor practices of the respondent in discharging
Lockemeyer, Brokaw, and Main on April 21. Twenty employees struck and a
twenty-first, Arthur Huglison, did not work on account of illness. According to
.Sebring, whom the undersigned credits, Hibbard on that morning advised him,
"Since they [the employees who did not go to work] quit, let them stay off."
Sebring advised the employees that if they did not go to work, they could get their
final pay and releases at the office. None of them did so and on the same day 12
-Hibbard sent the 21 employees letters of discharge, enclosing their checks and
releases, by registered mail. They were received by the addressees on April 24.
The respondent contended that cancellation of its contracts made the discharges
necessary. The plant had been engaged in filling war contracts since 1942. On
April 16, 1945, 17 trucks remained for manufacture under its contract require-
ments. Sebring explained at the hearing that 20 employees would have been
sufficient for the purpose of completing them but that the entire complement of
employees was retained for "making up parts for future business." He further
related that beginning in March, Hibbard and he had from time to time discussed
the imminent necessity of reducing the force. The evidence discloses, however,
that on April 23, they had reached decisions neither as to the time of such reduc-
tion, the number of employees to be severed, nor their identities. Both Hibbard
.and Sebring admitted on the record that the strike precipitated the discharges.
The respondent needed a force of 20 when it discharged 21 of its then- force
of 32. It thus reduced its complement to 11, a point well below its needs As
is hereinafter related, it immediately thereafter set about restaffing its force with
additional employees and at the time of the hearing was working a 55-hour week
with between 20 and 25 workers.
It is thus admitted and abundantly clear that the strike motivated the dis-
charges and that the sole criterion upon which employees were severed from their
employment was the fact of their not having worked that morning.13 The right
"Goodrich carried the Union 's applications on his person at the Interview.
12 It will be remembered that the respondent , through Hibbard , also refused to bargain
collectively with the Union on this day.
13 The fact that Hughson was discharged despite his inability to work on account of
illness bears out this conclusion . The respondent is found to have assumed that he had
joined in the strike . Its mistaken belief does not, of course , relieve it of tl* responsibility
for its action and Hughson is found to be in the same category as those whom it discharged
because they actually struck.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to strike is specifically protected by the Act and discrimination against employees
because they exercise, or are believed to have exercised, that right, be they union
members or not, is illegal.14
The undersigned, upon the entire record, finds that the respondent discharged
21 employees, whose names are listed in Appendices A and B hereof, because
they were members of the Union or engaged in concerted activities or both, or were
believed by the respondent to have done so.16
It is further found that the respondent has thereby discriminated against said
dischargees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discourag-
ing membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Continuing interference
Concurrently with its mass discharge of strikers and in,tial refusal to bargain,
the respondent continued its campaign of interference with the Union. Thus
on April 23, through Sebring and Fridley, it caused and assisted union employees
Heckman, Slocum , gad Harold Symonds, who did not go on strike, to prepare
and mail to the Union written withdrawals therefroio. Sebring furnished shop
notebook paper to Heckman and Slocum upon which to write their withdrawals,
read them, together with that of Symonds, and personally mailed that of Heck-
man for him. Parmalee, a non-union employee who did not go on strike and
whom Hibbard subsequently rewarded by a 10-cent per hour raise for not having
done so, testified without contradiction, and the undersigned finds, that on the
same day Sebring asked him to urge union employee John Hicks, who had likewise
not gone on strike, to execute a withdrawal. Parmalee did so but Hicks refused
to accede to the respondent's wishes Sebring admitted showing the Symonds
withdrawal to Hicks but testified that lie was unable to recall his reason for
doing so. It is found that he urged Hicks to execute a similar document"
It is found that the respondent, by the acts and statements of Sebring and
Fridley, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Discrimination against Hicks
Hicks continued to work in the plant until April 25. The parties stipulated
that if he were called as a witness , he would testify that on April 25, he spoke
14 Shortly after the strike, the respondent gave non-strikers Harry King, William Mur-
phy, H . Parmalee , Fred Meeker , Myron Crosier, and Rodney Leroy, who were non-union
members, and Clyde Slocum, who, as is hereinafter found, had withdrawn from the Union
at the respondent 's instance , special 10-cent per hour increases in pay. To some of them
Hibbard explained that the increase was to take the place of the $1 per truck bonus. Na
explanation for their raises other than the fact that they did not go on strike, is revealed
in the record It is found that the respondent thus rewarded them for not having done
so The complaint did not allege such action by the respondent to have constituted an
unfair labor practice and counsel for the Board stated on the record that no such con-
tention was made. Under these circumstances, the undersigned includes the finding
merely because It casts further light on the motive of the respondent in discharging its
striking employees
Ii This is not to be construed as a finding that the respondent might not have been under
the imminent, or then present , necessity of reducing its force and that some employees,
absent discrimination , would not have been laid off or discharged . By its general dis-
crimination, however, it has placed itself in a position where it must bear the consequences
of such action , for "it rested upon the tortfeasor to disentangle the consequences for
which it was chargeable from those from which it was immune ." See N. L. if. B. V.
Remington Ra&d, Inc., 94 F. ( 2d) 862 (C. C. A 2), cert den. 304 U. S. 576.
1° Hicks was unavailable as a witness at the hearing and did not testify.
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 909
to Sebring, complained of the manner in which the respondent was releasing its
employees, stated that he could no longer put up with it and was going home;
that Sebring asked him to wait, and shortly thereafter handed him his release
.and pay in full ; that Hicks told Sebring he was prepared to remain in the plant
if the respondent so desired ; that Sebring referred him to Hibbard who was
too busy to see Hicks; and that Sebring thereupon told Hicks he was through
and to leave the plant. The undersigned accepts Hicks' stipulated testimony as
true. It was corroborated by Sebring, who related that he "just got sick of hear-
ing [Hicks] whine" and with Hibbard's approval, discharged him. In view of
Sebring's futile efforts to cause Hicks to sign a withdrawal from the Union 2
bays before, the respondent's unceasing campaign against the Union as well as
its need of manpower at the time of the discharge,, and all of the circumstances
i evealed in the record. the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent
discharged Hicks because he refused to withdraw from the Union and threatened
to join in concerted activities with his colleagues who were on strike.
It is found that by discriminating against Hicks in regard to the hire and
tenure of his employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4 Further interference and refusals to bargain
Beginning about April 25, the respondent began soliciting the return to work
of certain striking employees Union employee Kenneth Coons, a striker, testi-
fied without contradiction, and the undersigned finds, that on April 25, both
Sebring and Fridley visited his home and asked that he return to work. Coons
was non-committal. On April 27, Sebring again called on Coons, reiterated his
request that he return to work, asked that he "hang on" to the last of the week
because there were certain "agitators" in the plant whom the respondent desired
"to sort out" from its employees before bringing others back. Coons did not
return.
Sebring testified, and the undersigned finds. that at about the same time he
also requested striking employees George Peake, Burnisky. and Calvin Utter to
return to work at the plant. Only Utter complied and returned on April 27.
During the period from April 27 to May 11, 1945, the respondent employed
12 of the employees whom it discharged on April 24. In addition to Utter, they
included Hughson, who was ill on the day of the strike, and Lloyd Johnson, who
though not a union member, had joined the strike because he "wanted to be a
man." On April 26, when Johnson visited the plant to get his tools, Hibbard
gave him a 5-cent per hour raise in pay and asked that he return to work. John-
son did so on April 27.
Under the circumstances revealed by the record, it is found that by seeking
to and causing the return to work of individual striking employees'` at a time
when the Union was their collective bargaining agent, and by causing Heckman,
Slocum, and Symonds to withdraw from the Union, the respondent has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union and thereby, and by the statement Qif
Sebring to Coons, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 18
IT Their discharges having been found to have been discriminatory , they retained their
status as employees of the respondent.
18 See Matter of Montgomery Word 4 Company, 37 N. L. R. B. 100, enf'd N. L. R. B. v.
Montgomery Ward ,t Co., 133 F. (2d) 676 (C. C. A. 9), and Matter of Ellis-Klatscher cE Co.,
40 N L. R. B. 1037, ent'd N. L. R. B. v. Ells-Klatscher d Co., 142 F. ( 2d) 356 (C. C. A. 9).
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in,
connection with the operations of the respondent set forth in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of those whose names are listed in Appendices A and
B hereof. It is possible that the employees discriminated against who have
not been reinstated and whose names are listed in Appendix A hereof, might
have been affected in their employment, absent the respondent's unfair labor
practices, but the record furnishes no basis for determining the order in which
they might have been laid off or discharged. The burden was upon the re-
spondent to show what the situation would have been had it not discriminated
against its employees. Under these circumstances it will be recommended that
the respondent offer to such employees immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, and in the event that there is insuffi-
cient work for all such employees entitled thereto, dismiss, if necessary to pro-
ride employment for those to whom reinstatement is to be offered, all persons
newly hired after April 24, 1945. If there is not then sufficient work available
for all employees, namely, the presently working employees and those to be
offered reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed among them
without discrimination against any employee because of his union membership
or activity or because he went on strike or did not work during the strike, fol-
lowing the system of seniority or other non-discriminatory practice heretofore
applied in the conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees, if any,
remaining after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately
available, shall be placed upon a preferential list and thereafter offered employ-
ment in their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment
becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work, in the
order determined among them by said system of seniority or other non-dis-
criminatory practice.18
Of those discriminated against, the following, whose names are listed in Ap-
pendix B hereof, have been reinstated by the respondent as of the dates set
opposite their names. It will therefore not be recommended that the respondent
offer them reinstatement :
Prosper Bankert___ April 27, 1945 Warren Knauss-----. April27, 1945
Willard Coons______ May 11, 1945 Edward O'Coyne____. April 27, 1945
Arthur Hughson____ April 30,1945 Frank Overslaugh___ April 39, 1945
Paul Iddings_______ April 27, 1945 Daniel Robyn_______ April 27, 1945
Lloyd Johnson-____ April 27, 1945 Harold Siegwalt_-___ May 4, 1945
Walter Kennedy___. April 28, 1945 Calvin Utter________ April27, 1945
39 See Mattter of E. H. Moore, Inc., 40 N. L. R. B. 1058, and Matter of Ford Motor Com-
pany, 31 N. L. R. B. 994.
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 911
It has been found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Jacob Lockemeyer, Leslie Brokaw, Carl Main, and
John Hicks, whose names are listed in Appendix C hereof. It will therefore be
recommended that the respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges.
It will be further recommended that the respondent make whole those whose
names are listed in Appendices A, B, and C hereof for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally
have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 20 during said period.21 Back pay for
those whose names are listed in Appendix B hereof shall terminate on the
respectii e dates set forth above.
It has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees within the appropriate unit
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
I International Association of Machinists 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 the
employees whose names are listed in Appendices A, B, and C hereof, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding
office, clerical, and supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. International Association of Machinists was on April 19, 1945, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all employees of the
respondent in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on April 23, 1945, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with International Association of Machinists as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged
1113v "net earnings" is meant the definition of the term in Matter of Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 N L. It. B. 440, and Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R. B , 311 U. S. 7.
21 As related above, about April 25 or 27, the respondent offered employees Kenneth
Coons, Peake, and Bernisky the opportunity to work but they did not accept In the
context of the unfair labor practices by the respondent found above, it is clear that such
offers, particularly in the light of Sebring's statement to Coons that the respondent was
taking occasion to "sort out" certain "agitators" from the plant as a result of the strike,
were not such offers of reinstatement as are within the purview of the Act. See Matter
of The Good Coal Company , 12 N. L . It. B. 136, 149 , and Matter of Draper Corporation.
52 N L R B. 1477, set aside on other grounds, N. L. R B. v. Draper Corporation, 145 F.
(2d) 199 (C. C. A. 4), It follows that their rights are unaffected by such offers and that
they are entitled to back pay from the date of the discrimination against them to the
offer of reinstatement herein recommended
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing tts 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.
7. 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, Wright-Hibbard Industrial Elec-
tric Truck Co., Inc., Phelps' New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists,
or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition thereof ;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association of Ma-
chinists as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the respondent, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ-
ities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to those whose names are listed in Appendices A and C hereof, im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in
the manner set forth in the Section entitled "The remedy" above, and place those
employees, if any, for whom employment is not immediately available upon a
preferential list in the manner hereinabove set forth, and thereafter, in said man-
ner, offer them employment as it becomes available;
(b) Make whole those whose names are listed in Appendices A, B, and C
hereof, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during the appli-
cable period, in the manner set forth in the Section entitled "Tile remedy" above,
less his net earnings " during said period ;
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Association of Ma-
chinists as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the respondent, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, with respect to
22 See footnote 20, above.
WRIGHT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK CO., INC. 913
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment ;
(d) Post at its Phelps, New York, plant, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix D." Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representatives, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous 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 ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
it is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, 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
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 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 Re-
gional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party de-
sire 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 transfer-
ring the case to the Board.
JosE ' L. HEKTOEN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated December 11, 1945.
APPENDIX A
Ralph Briggs Clarence Guard George Peake
Anthony Burnisky Willis Kregloh Walter Quiggle
Kenneth Coons Frank Lannon George Walthert
APPENDIX B
Prosper Bankert Lloyd Johnson Frank Overslaugh
Willard Coons Walter Kennedy Daniel Robyn
Arthur Hughson Warren Knauss Harold Siegwalt
Paul Iddings Edward O'Coyne Calvin Utter
APPENDIX C
Jacob Lockemeyer Carl Main
Leslie Brokaw John Hicks
692148--46-vo l. 67-59
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX D
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
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 International Association of Machinists or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Ralph Briggs Frank Lannon Jacob Lockemeyer
Anthony Burnisky George Peake Leslie Brokaw
Kenneth Coons Walter Quiggle Carl Main
Clarence Guard George Walthert John Hicks
Willis Kregloh
We will make the employees named below whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination :
Prosper Bankert Willard Coons Arthur Hughson
Paul Iddings Lloyd Johnson Walter Kennedy
Edward O'Coyne Frank Qverslaugh Daniel Robyn
Warren Knauss Harold Siegwalt Calvin Utter
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.
WRIGIIT-HIBBARD INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC TRUCK Co., INC.,
• 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
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 80 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.