Rome Specialty Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1949

84 N.L.R.B. 55 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of ROME SPECIALTY Co., INC. and MARY TnFar.r AND
MARJORIE WHITBECK ( EDICK), INDIVIDUALS
Case No. 9-CA-5.Decided June 9,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 25, 1948, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged, 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.' He also recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the Respondent engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.2
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's ruling that the
complaint in the instant case was validly issued under Section 10 (b)
of the amended Act. In support of this exception, it contends that
the complaint should not have been issued because the charge was not
filed and served before September 12, 1947, more than 6 months after
the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practices. The Board has
held that Section 10 (b) of the amended Act imposes no limitation on
the issuance of complaints in cases where the charges were filed and
served within 6 months of August 22, 1947, the effective date of the
amended Act.3 At the time of its transfer to the Board, the record in
the instant case did not contain proof of timely service of a copy of the
charge upon the Respondent. Subsequently, attorneys for the General
Counsel submitted to the Board an affidavit of a Board employee in
the office of the Regional Director for the Third Region wherein the
I Section 8 ( 1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the Trial Examiner
found was violated , is continued in all respects here material in Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
of the , Act, as amended
2 No exceptions were filed by any party to the findings and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to dismiss certain allegations of the complaint
3 Matter of Itasca Cotton Manufacturing Company, 79 N L R B 1442; Matter of S W.
Evans & Son, 81 N . L R B. 161.
84 N. L. R. B., No. 9.
55
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affiant stated that on September 12, 1947, she personally mailed a copy
of the charge addressed to the Respondent. A true copy of this affi-
davit was attached to the Board's "Notice to Show Cause" of March
18, 1949, in which the parties were given notice that such proof of
service would be made a part of the record in this case unless sufficient-
cause to the contrary was shown in writing. The Respondent, reply-
ing in the form of an affidavit by its president, does not deny the truth
or authenticity of the Board employee's affidavit; nor does it deny
actual receipt of the copy of the charge mailed on September 12, 1947.
It contends that such service was defective because it did not conform
to the manner of service provided in the Rules and Regulations of the
Board.4 The Board employee's affidavit reveals that service in this
case was made by regular rather than registered mail. However, we
do not regard this technical defect as sufficient in and of itself to affect
the validity of such service. The Board has held that procedural
requirements with regard to proof of service should be liberally con-
strued.6 We are satisfied that the Respondent in fact received the
copy of the charge addressed and mailed to it on September 12, 1947,
in the normal course of the mails. Accordingly, the afore-mentioned
evidence of service is hereby incorporated in the record. We find that
the charge in the instant case was timely filed and served in accordance
with the requirements of Section 10 (b) of the amended Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
The Board has reviewed the other rulings made by the Trial Exam-
iner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modi-
fications and additions noted herein.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee
Mary Theall because of her prominent role in the formulation and
circulation of the employees' petition for a wage increase on February
4 Section 203 84 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations provides that service shall be
made by "registered mail or in any manner provided for the service of papers in a civil
action by the law of the State in which the hearing is pending."
5 Matter of Old Colony Box Company, 81 N. L R . B 1025 Section 203 85 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations provides that "Failure to make proof of service does not affect
.the validity of the service."
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 57
4 or 5, 1947, and the subsequent work stoppage February 18, 1947.
Theall was an active leader of the Respondent's employees in their
efforts to secure a wage increase. At the time of her discharge, the
day following the work stoppage of February 18, she was informed
by Butts, the president of the Respondent, that she was the "in-
stigator of making trouble" and that without her "trouble will
cease." The respondent contends that Theall was discharged because
she was interfering with the work of other employees and was not
working at her bench at the conclusion of the work stoppage. The
record reveals, however, as the Trial Examiner found, that she did
return to work within a reasonable period after the work stoppage
terminated and reported to the plant the next day at the usual hour.
The decision to discharge her was made summarily after the work
stoppage occurred and with no previous warning that her conduct in
the plant was otherwise objectionable to the Respondent. Under
these circumstances, we are persuaded that the Respondent believed
her to be primarily responsible for the concerted activities of the em-
ployees in the plant and agree with the Trial Examiner that she was
discharged for this reason.
As we have heretofore held, the type of activities engaged in by
Theall and other employees in the plant are clearly protected under the
Act and a discharge for engaging in such activities violates not only
Section 8 (1), but also discourages membership in a labor organization
in violation of Section 8 (3).e Moreover, whether the discharge be
regarded as a violation of Section 8 (1) or (3) of the Act, we find it
necessary to order that Theall be reinstated with back pay in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharge of Whit-
beck (Edick), Theall's daughter, was motivated by her relationship
to Theall and was intended as a reprisal for the latter's participation
in the concerted activities referred to above. We find no merit in the
Respondent's contention that Whitbeck (Edick) was discharged be-
cause she had not been meeting the minimum production schedule.
According to the testimony of the Respondent's superintendent,
Rundle, it was customary to warn an employee about 10 times that her
work was unsatisfactory before discharging her. The record reveals
that Whitbeck (Edick) was not warned once by the Respondent with
regard to the quantity or quality of her work before the work stoppage
occurred. The record shows further that other employees in the plant
were not meeting the minimum production schedule. Not until 10
minutes after 3 o'clock on the afternoon of February 18, the date of the
6 Matter of Kennametal, Inc, 80 N L. R. B. 1481 ; see, also, Matter of Westinghouse
Electric Corporation , Ansonia Plant, 77 N. L. R. B. 1058, and cases cited therein.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work stoppage, did Rundle recommend to Butts that Whitbeck
(Edick) be discharged. Her discharge, like that of her mother,
Theall, was effected the next day in a summary and final manner. In
view of these facts, we find that Whitbeck (Edick) was discriminato-
rily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act and shall order
that she be reinstated with back pay, as recommended by the Trial
Examiner.7
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Rome Specialty
Co., Inc., Rome, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its
employees by discharging or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees or any
term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join
or form labor organizations, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and to refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, 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.
(a) Offer Mary Theall and Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick) immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges and make each of them whole for any loss of pay each may
have suffered by reason of discrimination against them by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount determined in
the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The remedy" ;
° See Matter of Califruit Canning Company, 78 N. L R B . 112, where the Board held
that the discriminatory discharge of a wife because of the union activities of her husband
constituted a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 59
(b) Post immediately at its plant in Rome, New York, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 8 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 it 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. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices by interrogating
its employees concerning their concerted activities; by threatening and
warning its employees not to become affiliated with labor unions or any
other organization designed for the purposes of collective bargaining
in regard to wages, hours, and working conditions; and by threaten-
ing its employees with discharge or other disciplinary action if they
engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, 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 any labor organization
of our employees by discharging or in any other manner discrim-
inating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of our
employees or any term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist labor organi-
zations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
I In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words. "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING,"
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
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.
Mary Theall
Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick)
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any
labor organization of their own choosing. 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 labor organization, or because he has engaged
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or in
other mutual aid or protection.
ROME SPECIALTY Co., INC.,
Employer.
Dated--------------------- By--------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
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
Messrs. Richard Lipsitz and John C. McBee, for the General Counsel.
Evans & Evans, by Mr. Arthur S. Evans, of Rome, N. Y., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on September 11, 1947, by Mary Theall and Marjorie
Whitbeck (Edick),' individuals, herein called respectively Theall and Whitbeck,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,2 on behalf of the
Board, caused the Regional Director for the Third Region to issue a complaint
dated April 29, 1948, against Rome Specialty Co., Inc., herein called the Respond-
ent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and as reenacted in
Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( a) (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act as amended
by Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,3 herein called the Act. Copies of the
i During her period of employment with the Respondent and at the time of the alleged
unfair labor practices, Marjorie Whitbeck was known under the said name . Since that
time, she has married and is presently known under the name of Marjorie Whitbeck Edick.
2 The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
8 Public Law 101, 80th Congress , Chapter 120 , 1st Session , June 23, 1947.
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 61
complaint, charge, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Re-
spondent and Theall and Whitbeck.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent: (1) since on or about February 7, 1947, by (a) interrogat-
ing its employees regarding their concerted activities, (b) threatening and warn-
ing its employees to refrain from engaging in concerted activities, (c) threatening
and warning its employees not to join or become affiliated with labor unions or
any other organization which is designed for purposes of collective bargaining in
regard to wages, hours, and working conditions, (d) threatening its employees
with discharge or other disciplinary action if they engaged in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (2)
on or about February 19, 1947, by discharging and thereafter failing and refusing
to reinstate Mary Theall and Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick) because they engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection; and (3) by the foregoing conduct,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and as reenacted in the same section
of the amended Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, and as re-
enacted in Section 8 (a) (1) and (a) (3) of the amended Act.
The Respondent's answer duly received admits certain allegations of the com-
plaint concerning its corporate structure, its business activities, and the fact that
it is engaged in interstate commerce, but denies that it engaged in unfair labor
practices. In addition, the answer sets up two separate and distinct defenses
to the complaint as follows: (1) that the unfair labor practices upon which the
complaint is based occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 10 (b) of the Act, as amended ; and (2) that Mary Theall and
Marjorie Whitbeck ( Edick ) were discharged for cause within the meaning of
Section 10 (c) of the Act, as amended.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Rome, New York, on May 12, 1948,
before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Ex-
aminer. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel.
Theall and Whitbeck appeared in person. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the is-
sues was afforded all parties. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Re-
spondent moved to dismiss the complaint under Section 10 (b) of the Act, as
amended, on the same grounds as set forth in the answer referred to supra. The
motion was denied.` At the close of the hearing the General Counsel moved to
4 The Respondent contended at the hearing and in its brief that since no charge was filed
and no complaint issued prior to the enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, and sufficient time having remained for the charging parties to meet the require-
ments of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the charging parties having
failed to meet such requirements, the General Counsel had no power or authority to issue
the complaint herein, and it therefore should be dismissed . It was further contended in
the Respondent 's brief that any rights the charging parties may have had under the Act
to have a complaint issue upon the charges filed expired with the enactment of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, unless the rights survived by special provision of the
latter Act. It is the opinion of the undersigned that Section 10'(b) of the amended Act
imposes no limitation upon the issuance of complaints in any case in which the charges
have been filed within 6 months after August 22, 1947, the effective date of the amend-
ments. The charge herein was filed September 11, 1947. See Smartley v Pennsylvania
Sugar Company, 108 F. (2d) 603 (C. A 4) ; Anderson v General, etc., 134 Minn 21,
158 N W. 715. The Respondent also set forth in its brief and argued at the hearing that
since the charge did not specifically allege discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Theall and Whitbeck , the General Counsel had no authority to issue a
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters; this motion was granted
without objection. Although afforded an opportunity to argue orally on the rec-
ord, the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent waived this privilege,
indicating instead their intention to file a brief. Briefs were duly received from
the General Counsel and from counsel for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent; Rome Specialty Co., Inc, is a corporation duly organized
under the laws of the iState of New York, with its plant and principal office at
Rome, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture of fishing tackle,
novelties, leather goods and related products. During the year 1947, the Respond-
ent purchased raw materials consisting principally of leather and metal products
valued at approximately $350,000, of which approximately 90 percent was pur-
chased from points outside the State of New York, and shipped to Respondent's
plant in Rome, New York. During the same year, the Respondent's sales were'
valued at approximately $700,000, of which approximately 95 percent represented
sales to customers in States other than the State of New York. For the purposes,
of this proceeding, the Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
A. The discriminatory discharge of Mary Theall
1. Background, circulation of petition for wage increase, the strike,
and discharge of Theall
Mary Theall was in the Respondent's employ from March 1946 until on or about
February 19, 1947, the date of her discharge. Theall's work consisted of operat-
ing the touch press and the hand swivel machines, and at times when the ma-
chine on which she was working broke down, she was assigned to do odd jobs
in the plant such as sorting pins.
The Respondent paid its employees on a piecework rate basis, or if they did
not produce in any one clay in accordance with the piecework schedules in effect
for their machines, they were paid a basic rate of 55 cents per hour on a day rate-
basis. The method of determining whether an employee met her piecework
schedule for the day was by weighing each employee's completed production after
the close of work. Theall testified that at the end of her shift and immediately
before leaving the plant, she took her completed work to the head of the stairs
complaint containing allegations of discriminatory discharge That every single element
in a complaint issued by the Board need not be covered by a charge filed with the Board
has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court National Licorice Co. v. N L. R. B.,
309 U S. 350 Furthermore, as Mr. Justice Jackson stated in N. L. R B. v Indiana and
Michigan Electric Company , et at , 318 U S 9, " . The charge is not proof, it merely
sets in motion the machinery of an inquiry. When a Board complaint issues, the question is
only the truth of its accusations . The charge does not even serve the purpose of a pleading.
(Emphasis supplied ). See also Matter of Sewell Manufacturing Company,
72 N. L. R. B 85.
6 Unless otherwise indicated , all findings of facts are based upon either admitted or
uncontroverted evidence.
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 63
and a male employee carried it downstairs to the weighmaster. She did not see
her completed day's work weighed. On Saturday mornings she received a slip
of white paper which contained notations of the number of hours worked or the
total number of gross completed daily if she produced or exceeded her piece-
work schedule.
Theall received the piecework rate of 111/2 cents per gross when she began
her employment and after a month she was given an increase to the prevailing
rate of 12 cents per gross. Her basic hourly rate throughout her period of
employment was 55 cents.
In December 1946, Theall and a number of other employees of the second
floor of the plant began to talk among themselves about the need for an increase
in the basic hourly rate and that they were not being credited with the full
amount of their piecework.
On or about February 4 or 5, 1947, while thus engaged in conversation with
several employees concerning the rates of pay, Theall voiced her opinion that
there was no use talking about a raise, but suggested rather that a petition ask-
ing for a 10-cent raise be drafted, and submitted to Jerrold Butts, the president
of the Respondent.
In accordance with her suggestion, Theall and another employee, Helen Sobik,
wrote the following inscription on a piece of brown wrapping paper : "We want a
10¢ raise including piece work." During her lunch hour that day Theall signed
the petition and canvassed several other girls on the second floor, for their signa-
tures. Upon their return to work at the finish of the lunch hour, Helen Sobik
took the petition around to the other girls on the floor and asked them to sign.
The petition containing the signatures of 25 employees, was delivered to Butts.
The following morning, Charles Rundle, the Respondent's plant superintendent,
came up to the second floor and talked with each employee individually. Rundle
asked Theall if she would give Butts 2 weeks to figure up his accounts before
acting on the wage increase demand. Theall replied that it was no more than
fair that the Respondent have 2 weeks to go over its books and figures e
On February 18, Rundle again talked with Theall and told her that Butts
would like another 2 weeks to figure the rates of pay to determine if he could
grant an increase. Theall told Rundle that since there were only 100 employees
in the plant, she did not think that so much time was necessary to figure on an
increased wage, adding that she did not think it was fair, as the employees
had already waited 2 weeks. Rundle then told Theall that if she did not like
the idea, she could go downstairs, pick up her pay and go home. Theall answered
that that would not be so easy. Rundle thereafter walked around the second
floor and again talked with each girl individually.
After Rundle left the second floor, Sobik as well as some of the other girls
talked with Theall. Theall suggested to each that if all the girls were in agree-
ment, they should call a strike. After canvassing the girls and determining
that they were willing to participate in a strike, Theall called the girls from their
O Rundle admitted talking to the girls individually after the receipt of the petition by
Butts Rundle testified that his purpose in talking with the girls was to determine what
grievances they had Rundle did not deny the conversation with Theall. He stated
that, on a subsequent occasion , about a week after his first series of conversations with
the girls , he was asked about the increase while he was on the second floor and he told the
girls that if there were any raises to be given they could not all have them and that they
would have to wait for nearly 2 weeks because the Respondent had to go through its figures.
The undersigned is of the opinion that Rundle was in error as to the date of this latter
conversation and credits Theall 's version of the conversation with Rundle.
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machines at 12 noon.' The girls left their machines and congregated in a
group on the second floor of the plant. Theall, addressing them, said that since
Butts could not see their position on the wage increase , they should make an
effort to bring a union into the plant to try to help the girls get an increased
wage. At the same time another petition was drafted with the following inscrip-
tion : "If one girl gets fired, all the rest go too." This petition was signed by
Theall, Sobik, and about 25 other employees.
Butts was out of the plant when the work stoppage began. Upon receiving a
telephone call advising him of what was going on, he came back to the plant
immediately , arriving at about 12: 30 p. in., and saw the girls who were still
engaged in the work stoppage, standing around the second floor. Butts asked
what their trouble was, and one of the girls answered that they were not satisfied
with Bundle's statement to them that morning, and they refused to work until
they received an answer to their petition regarding the increased wage. Butts
said that any girl who was not satisfied was to report to the office, get her check,
and go home. Whereupon one of the employees remarked that if one girl was
fired, they would all walk out. Butts' answer to this was, "All right , you are all
fired." However, none of the girls left. Butts came around to where Theall was
standing and she said to him, "I can't see how you expect girls to make piece
work when they have to carry their work downstairs, wait for it to be weighed,
carry it back up and when the machine breaks down, you have to wait five to
fifteen minutes for a man to come fix your belt or do whatever you have got to do,
and still you expect the girls to get a good rating for piece work." Butts accord-
ing to Theall replied, "We are not making a barrel of money around here." Butts
then told the girls that he would give them a few minutes to make up their minds
as to what they were going to do and went downstairs to his office.'
A short time thereafter, two employees allegedly leaders of the strikers, ap-
peared in Butts' office,° stating that the striking employees were then willing to
return to their jobs. Butts told them that if they would go back to work he was
4 The girls on the 8 a in to 5 p in. shift had their lunch hour from 12 to 12: 30 p. in.
Theall and the other girls from the 7 a . in. to 3 p. in shift who participated in the work
stoppage left their work
8 Butts, testifying regarding his version of the incidents in the plant during the work
stoppage, stated that he arrived at the plant after 12 : 30 p in., when the employees should
have been working, and ascertained that they were on strike . After some further con-
versation which he could not remember, he told all of the striking employees to come to
his office to receive their pay . He returned to his office prepared to make out pay checks,
but none of the employees reported to him. As a result Butts went back to the second
floor and found the employees still standing around. He was asked a number of questions
and told the group that if he was going to increase their pay it would mean that they
would all "have to make out" on piece work, since the Respondent's products were highly
competitive and it did not make so much money that it could afford to pay people who did
not produce more than their minimum base pay. Butts testified further that he believed
he told the group that his secretary had been ill, with the result that the Respondent had
been held up in changing its piecework rates, but that it would raise them as soon as it
was physically possible to do so Butts then asked the employees whether they were going
to return to work, and they replied that they wanted time to think it over Butts granted
them 5 minutes and told the group that he would be in his office waiting for their answer.
Butts' testimony is at slight variance with Theall's testimony. Theall denied that Butts
told the group that any pay increase would be dependent upon investigation of the pro-
duction of various individuals or that it would be necessary for the Respondent to continue
employing only those workers who could produce sufficiently to enable the Respondent to
pay a higher rate on highly competitive products. As noted above, Butts was not certain
as to exactly what he told the striking employees . From his observation of the witnesses
and upon the entire record, the undersigned credits Theall's denials.
° Butts did not name the two employees who came to his office but described them as
"spokesmen for the group."
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 65
satisfied and "would let it go at that time." One by one the girls with the
exception of Theall and Sobik returned to their jobs at or about 1 p. in. Theall
testified that she and Sobik continued talking to Floorlady Miller about a union
in the plant until 2 p. in., when Theall remarked, "I guess we might as well go
back to work, everybody else has, . . . there is nothing else we can do." Theall
returned to her job then, and worked the remainder of the shift until 3 p. m. when
she left the plant. Upon leaving the plant, Theall talked with her daughter,
Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick) 10 who was employed on the 3 p. m. to 11 p. in. shift.
Theall told Whitbeck that Butts had refused to give the employees a raise and
wanted more time and that the girls had called a strike that afternoon. Theall
asked Whitbeck if she could help organize the girls on her shift into a union.
The conversation between Theall and Whitbeck took place in the presence of
Floorlady Miller who was seated about 2 feet away.
Theall reported for work at the regular time the next day and worked for 1
hour when Helen Miller told her she was wanted in Butts' office. Theall saw
Butts in his private office where the following conversation ensued : Butts said,
"I thought this thing was settled." Theall replied, "As far as I know, it was."
Butts said , "You did not go back to work yesterday when the girls did." Theall
answered, "I did not say I would." Butts told Theall that the production figures
showed that on the previous Monday she had completed 493/4 gross and on Tues-
day only 25 gross. Theall remarked that it was unfair to compare Tuesday's
work with Monday's, since they were on a work stoppage for about 2 hours
on Tuesday during which time they did not work. Butts then said, "I think
you'd better pick up your pay." Theall asked him what he meant and Butts
replied, "It means you are fired, you are through." Theall remonstrated and
stated that she was not the only girl who took part in the work stoppage, where-
upon Butts said, "You are the instigator of making trouble. With you out of
the 'way, trouble will cease." Butts then left his office and told his secretary
to make up Theall's check, which she received on her way out of the plant.
That afternoon Theall, in the company of Sobik, Whitbeck, and several other
employees, went to the office of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America to confer with union representatives.11 Theall never personally
requested reinstatement thereafter.
2. Reasons for Theall's discharge advanced by Respondent; conclusions
In its answer, the Respondent averred that Theall was discharged for cause
within the meaning of Section 10 (c) of the amended Act. At the hearing
herein, Butts gave the following reasons for discharging Theall: (1) because
after the strike she refused to go back to her job; (2) that she interfered with
the work of the other employees who were in her department while they were
supposed to be working; and (3) on company time she would bother the other
employees to some extent, resulting in a decreased production for all employees.
Butts testified that he concluded that Theall did not return to work the day
of the strike only from his investigation of the weight records. Other than
Butts' testimony, the Respondent did not adduce any proof that Theall had
not returned to her job as she testified she did at 2 p. in. and worked until the
end of her shift at 3 p. in, the day of the strike. The undersigned credits Theall's
10 whitbeck's discriminatory discharge will be discussed hereinafter.
"The record reveals that Sobik was also discharged by the Respondent that day. The
complaint does not allege her discharge to have been in violation of the Act.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony in this regard. The fact is that she again returned to work at her
regular time at 7 a. m. on Wednesday, February 19, and worked for 1 hour before
she was called to Butts' office and told that she was discharged. With respect
to the other reasons given by Butts for Theall's discharge, Butts admitted that
either Rundle or Helen Miller told him that Theall, after the strike was sup-
posedly called off, went from one worker to another, talking to them and
disturbing them the remainder of the afternoon while they were trying to work.
He further admitted that Theall's disturbing tactics among the employees applied
only to the afternoon of the strike. Butts admitted that prior to the strike
he had never checked Theall's work record, nor had he ever spoken to her about
her work. Theall's undenied, credible testimony is that during her entire period
of employment she was never warned regarding her work, nor had she received
any complaints about her work, nor was she ever told that she was behind in
the established piecework schedules. The fact is that a check of the records of
earnings by Butts for the week of February 15, of the 25 employees who signed
the first petition asking for an increase in pay, revealed that Theall received
higher wages than did 15 other employees on the said list. Rundle admitted
that it was a daily occurrence for the girls to shout across the room at each
other. Rundle further admitted that if an employee is retained by the Re-
spondent after the first 3 months of her employment, she is usually sufficiently
competent to stay on
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Theall was discharged by the
Respondent because she engaged in concerted activities with other employees
in connection with the formation and circulation of the petition for a wage
increase on February 4, and.in connection with the work stoppage on February
18 It is apparent that whatever complaints the Respondent may have had
regarding Theall's alleged interference with the employees, are those immediately
prior to and coincidentally with her concerted activity in respect to the petition
for a wage increase and the work stoppage. As heretofore found, Theall did
return to her work shortly after all of the other employees who were engaged
in the work stoppage returned to their work. It follows that the reasons
advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of Theall are without merit. It
is significant that Theall was discharged without any prior warning, for conduct
alleged by the Respondent to have motivated her discharge. It is more significant
that Butts did not undertake to investigate Theall's work record until after
the work stoppage. Most significant, however, as to the Respondent's motivation
for Theall's discharge, was Butts' statement to her, which is undenied in the
record, that she was fired because she was the instigator of the trouble and that
without her the trouble would cease.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned
concludes and finds that the Respondent discharged Mary Theall because of
her concerted activities in regard to the formation and circulation of the petition
for, a wage increase on February 4 or 5, 1947, and for her concerted activities in
the work stoppage of February 18, with the resulting effect that the Respondent
has discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment and dis-
couraged the formation of and membership in a labor organization in violation
of Section 8 (3) of the Act,12 as reenacted in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as
amended.
12 See Matter of Worthington-Creamery and Produce Company, 52 N L R B 121, it
case involving discharges of employees because of their concerted activities , wherein the
Board stated, "We are of the opinion and we find that, irrespective of whether such con-
certed activity resulted from any interest or activity in a labor organization , such dis-
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 67
B. The discriminatory discharge of Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick)
1. Background ; facts leading up to Whitbeck's discharge
Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick), the daughter of Mary Theall, was initially em-
ployed by the Respondent in June 1946. Because of illness, in November 1946
she voluntarily terminated her employment with the Respondent for several
days, but was rehired by Butts;' andiremained in the Respondent's employ until
she was discharged on February 19, 1947. Whitbeck worked on the 8 a. in. to
5 p. in. shift for several months and then transferred to the 3 p. in. to 11 p. in.
shift until her discharge. She worked on the swager and punch press machines
in the plant as well as at odd jobs when her machine broke down.
On February 18, 1947, Theall talked with Whitbeck at about 3 p. in. about
the work stoppage of the day shift employees which had taken place that after-
noon, and asked her if she would help to organize the employees on her (Whit-
beck's) shift into a union. Whitbeck worked the whole shift on February 18.
During the course of the shift, Whitbeck talked with Glendora Van Loan, the
floorlady on the night shift, and told Van Loan that she was not going to talk
to any of the night girls about joining a union because she did not want to stick
her neck out and be discharged.
On February 19, at about 3 p. m., Whitbeck accompanied Theall and two other
employees to the headquarters of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, and did not report for work until 4: 15 p 11114 She looked for her
time card but it was removed from the rack. Whitbeck asked Helen Miller where
her time card was, and she was told that she was wanted in Butts' office. Whit-
beck was wearing an organizing committee button of the United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, on her lapel. When Whitbeck entered Butts'
office he said, "We have been waiting for you." Rundle upon spying the union
button on her coat said, "You are well decorated, aren't you?" Butts then in-
quired, "Whose idea was that9" Whitbeck stated that she would not mention
any names, whereupon Rundle said, "You think you are pretty cute, don't you?
We have got your check, you go out and wait in the other office " Whitbeck sat
down in the outer office to wait; Butts and Rundle put on their coats and went
out. They returned in about 15 or 20 minutes and called Whitbeck back into
the office. Butts told her that she had not been making her piecework schedules
and proceeded to show her books which revealed that she had dropped in her
piecework production Butts then stated, "The reason you are getting fired is
because you haven't been making your piece work."
2. Respondent's reasons for Whitbeck's discharge ; conclusions
In its answer the Respondent averred that Whitbeck was discharged for cause
within the meaning of Section 10 (c) of the Act, as amended. At the hearing,
crimination has the effect of discouraging the formation and membership in a labor organi-
zation, which is the customary instrument utilized by employees in exercising the right to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and constitutes an, unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act " See, also , Matter of Rockingham
Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc, 59 N L R B 486; Matter of Phoenix Mutual Life
Insurance Company, 73 N L R B 1463
13 Whitlock testified credibly and without contradiction that because the swager machine
on which she was then working continually broken down, she became very nervous and
terminated her employment
14 Whitbeck testified -,iithout contradiction that she had never previously reported to
work late
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Butts testified that Whitbeck was discharged because her production for several
weeks prior to her discharge was way below par, and further because she was
disturbing other employees while they were supposed to be working, by talking
to them. Butts admitted that the only occasion upon which he had to check
Whitbeck's work, during her entire period of employment with the Respondent,
was after the work stoppage in the plant on February 18. He also testified that
after the work stoppage he talked with Vats Loan about Whitbeck, and that Van
Loan told him that Whitbeck was leaving her machine and going around talking
to other girls. Butts admitted that he had never before received such a report
regarding Whitbeck, from Van Loan or any other supervisory employee. He also
admitted that he had never talked with Whitbeck about her work, about absences,
or about anything else pertaining to her employment prior to the time that he
discharged her, nor did he request Van Loan or any other supervisor to talk
with her.
Whitbeck admitted that her production record for several weeks before the
date of her discharge may have been lower than the average, but explained
that this was due to the many jobs she was shifted to during the 6 weeks before
her discharge, because the swager machine on which she regularly worked was
being repaired.15 This testimony which was undenied is credited. There is no
evidence in the record that Whitbeck's work record was in any manner more un-
satisfactory than any of a number of other employees. In fact, Rundle acknowl-
edged that during the week of February 15, there could have been 26 or 76
employees whose records had fallen below the minimum production schedule. It
is significant, as Rundle testified, that the decision to discharge Whitbeck was
made on the night of February 18, and her pay check was made out the following
morning, several hours before she was to report for work. It is also significant
that when Whitbeck reported for work at 4: 15 p. in., on February 19, her time
card was missing and Butts and Rundle told her they had her pay check. It was
not until later, after Butts and Rundle had gone out of the plant and returned in
about 20 minutes, that she was told, ". . . because you haven't been making your
piece work," she was fired. In the opinion of the undersigned, Butts' reason for
discharging Whitbeck was merely an afterthought, and he so finds.
It is clear from the testimony of Butts and Rundle that to all practical pur-
poses Whitbeck had already been discharged by the Respondent before she had
arrived at the plant on February 19. Nothing remained to be done but to notify
her formally of the existence of an accomplished fact. It is evident that the
reason for Whitbeck's discharge was her relationship to Mary Theall. Her sepa-
ration merely implemented Theall's discharge. It was thus a reprisal for Theall's
concerted activity and an interference with the right of self-organization and a
deterrent to membership in a labor organization 16
The undersigned therefore finds that Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick) was dis-
charged on February 19, 1947, because of the concerted activities of Mary Theall
and that the Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, dis-
criminated in the tenure of her employment, and discouraged membership in
labor organizations 17
15 Whitbeck also testified without contradiction that practically all jobs to which she
was assigned while the swager machine was being repaired, were jobs on which she had
never worked before
16 See Matter of Memplos Furniture Mfg Co , 3 N L. R B 26 at 33, enfd. 96 F. (2d)
1018 (C A. 6) cert denied 305 U S. 627
17 See Matter of Texas Textile Mills, 58 N L R B. 352
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC.
C. Other alleged interference, restraint and coercion
69,
The complaint alleges that Respondent by its officers, agents, and supervisory
employees from on or about February 1, 1947, to date, interrogated its employees
concerning their concerted activities ; threatened and warned its employees to-
refrain from engaging in concerted activities ; threatened and warned its em-
ployees not to become affiliated with labor unions or any other organizations
designed for the purposes of collective bargaining in regards to wages, hours and
working conditions ; and threatened its employees with discharge or other dis-
ciplinary action if they engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Thus, the General Counsel
adduced testimony from Theall that on the Saturday after the pay-raise petition-
,was submitted to the Respondent, Helen Miller told Theall that Butts did not
want a union in the plant and would fire anybody caught trying to bring the
union in or talking union to the employees. Theall also testified that during
the period when the work stoppage was in effect she and Sobik were talking with
Miller about a union coming into the plant, and Miller said she thought Butts-
would close the plant if a union came in.
It is the Respondent's contention raised at the hearing that Miller was a
strawboss and not a supervisor within the definition of the Act 1B The Respond-
ent admitted that among Miller's duties were the assignment of employees to
their jobs, instructing employees in their jobs, and the weighing of employees'
work to determine the amount of piecework they produced in any one day. Mil-
ler, in addition to these duties, regularly worked on production, and was paid one
an hourly basis. The record is barren of any evidence that Miller had the right
to hire, fire, or discipline employees or that she could even recommend that em-
ployees be hired, fired, or disciplined. It appears to the undersigned that Miller
was used mainly as a means of conveying information and instructions between
Butts and Rundle and the employees, and was not clothed with the commonly
.known duties of supervisors. In the undersigned's opinion the General Counsel
has failed to establish that Miller was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, and he so finds. Furthermore, the record fails to establish that the Respond-
ent had inspired or instigated the anti-union statements made by Miller to
Theall and Sobik, nor did the Respondent ratify them. In addition, it is the
undersigned's opinion that the General Counsel failed to prove by substantial evi-
dence that when Miller told Theall and Sobik that she thought Butts would
close the plant if a union came in, she was not considered to be representing
management. This becomes more evident when it is considered that the record.
reveals that Miller could not and did not act on employees' requests to her, such
as for a pay raise, to leave the plant before the end of the regular shift, or to
work overtime, until she cleared with either Butts or Rundle. Under the cir-
cumstances, and upon the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that the
Respondent is not chargeable for Miller's statements to Theall and Sobik. It wily
accordingly be recommended that the said allegation of the complaint be,
dismissed.
ie Supervisor is defined in the Act Section 2 (11) as follows : "The term 'supervisor'
means any individual having authority in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees,
or responsibly to'direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend,
such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of at
merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment."
853390-50-vol 84-6
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section II, 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
-
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Mary Theall and Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick).
The undersigned will therefore recommend that the Respondent offer each im-
mediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion 19 without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make
each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of such discrimi-
nation by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which each would
have earned as wages from the date of her discriminatory discharge to the date
,of the offer of reinstatement less her net earnings 20 during such period.
These violations as set forth above clearly indicate that the Respondent's
purpose was to defeat the exercise by employees of their rights to self-organiza-
tion. Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose,
the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persua-
sively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's con-
duct in the past?' The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless
the recommendations are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to
make effective the interdependent guarantee of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the under-
signed will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing on the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mary
Theall and Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick) thereby discouraging the formation of
and membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, as reenacted in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
10 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression,
"former or substantially equivalent position," is intended to mean "former position wher-
'ever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent
position " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N L R B 827
20 See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R B 440, 492-498.
21 See N L R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426, May Department Stores
Co. v. N. L. It. B., 326 U S. 376.
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 71
2. By said acts , the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
Its employees in the exercise of -the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act , as reenacted in Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as
amended.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices by interrogating
its employees concerning their concerted activities ; by threatening and warning
its employees to refrain from engaging in concerted activities ; by threatening
and warning its employees not to become affiliated with labor unions or any other
organization designed for the purposes of collective bargaining in regard to wages,
hours, and working conditions ; and by threatening its employees with discharge
or other disciplinary action if they engaged in concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the Respondent, Rome Specialty Co., Inc., Rome, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its employees by
discharging or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of its employees or any term or condition of their
employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to join or form labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing and to engage in concerted activities 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
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Mary Theall and Marjorie Whitbeek (Edick) immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and make each of
them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of discrimina-
tion against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount determined in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy,"
above;
(b) Post immediately at its plant in Rome, New York, 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 it 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 the said notices
are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) 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 herewith.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed, insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices by interrogating its em-
ployees concerning their concerted activities; by threatening and warning its
employees to refrain from engaging in concerted activities ; by threatening and
warning its employees not to become affiliated with labor unions or any other
organization designed for the purposes of collective bargaining in regard to
wages, hours, and working conditions ; and by threatening its employees with
discharge or other disciplinary action if they engaged in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within ten (10)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report notify 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 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to
the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six
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 on, together with the original and six
copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period,
file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203 85. As further provided in said Sec-
tion 203.46, 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and rec-
ommended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
SIDNEY LINDNER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 25, 1948.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
ROME SPECIALTY CO., INC. 73
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 privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination.
Mary Theall
Marjorie Whitbeck (Edick)
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organl•
zation of their own choosing. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any em-
ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization,
or because he has engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
ROME SPECIALTY Co., INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------------------------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.