Henrich Lumber, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1270 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in organizational activities in behalf of the Petitioner and further, that he
had no knowledge of Engelhardt's preference, if any, between the Petitioner
and the Intervenor, is not refuted by any evidence offered by the Intervenor.
Investigation having revealed no evidence of disparate treatment in favor
of the Petitioner in the assignment of overtime work, no material or substantial
question concerning conduct affecting the results of the election has been raised
by Intervenor's objection No. 2, it is recommended that said objection also be
overruled.
A. majority of the valid votes having been cast for Chicago Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs and Helpers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705, Independent,
it is further recommended that said labor organization be certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all outside truck drivers employed by
the Employer at its McCormick Works, Chicago, Illinois, but excluding all of
the experimental engineering departments, advanced engineering, dairy products
engineering, and all employees at McCormick Works that are not considered
part of the McCormick Works, guards, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
HENRICH LUMBER , INC. and PAUL AXTHELM
HENRICH LUMBER , INC. and PAUL AXTHELM. Cases Nos . 3-CA-159
and 3-CA--358. September 26,1952
Decision and Order
On February 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made 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 exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with modifications noted below.
As found by the Trial Examiner, on April 12, 1949, the Respondent
discharged bench hand Axthelm at the Union's request, pursuant to a
clearly unlawful closed-shop contract. Axthelm thereupon filed a
charge alleging that the discharge was discriminatory. On June 6,
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
100 NLRB No. 204.
HENRICH LUMBER , INC . 1271
1949, the Respondent reinstated him. On August 26,1949, it laid him
off in a reduction in force due to business reasons. On May 17, 1950,
the Respondent and Axthelm signed a settlement agreement, approved
by the Regional Director, which contained no provision for Axthelm's
reinstatement. On July 10, 1950, Axthelm applied to the Respondent.
for employment. He was refused by Superintendent Bretl, although
on the same day the Respondent had a bench hand vacancy, for which
it rehired another laid-off employee with less seniority than Axthelm,
and thereafter it hired new bench hands. In August 1950 Axthelm
again applied for employment, and was referred to President Pearce,
who told him that he was a "trouble-maker" and had made all the
trouble he was going to make, that he should leave the premises, and
that the Respondent had settled the case with him and did not want
anything further to do with him.
On these facts the Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act on April 12,
-1949, by discharging Axthelm at the Union's request, pursuant to the
unlawful closed-shop contract. The Trial Examiner further con-
cluded that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (4) on
and after July 10, 1950, by refusing Axthelm's application for employ-
ment because of the "trouble" he had made in connection with the
earlier discharge. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion as to
the violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3). We believe that the only
reasonable explanation which can be drawn from the record for Re-
spondent's refusal to rehire an experienced hand like Axthelm, at a
time when it was not only rehiring another laid-off employee with less
seniority, but also new bench hands from outside, is that it was moti-
vated by the same discriminatory factors which were operative in Ax-
thelm's original discharge. We are not satisfied, however, that the
Respondent refused Axthelm's application for reemployment for the
further reason that he had filed charges under the Act. The record
shows that the Respondent had reinstated Axthelm in June 1949, after
he had filed charges, and that no further charges were filed before he
applied for employment in 1950. Accordingly, we do not adopt the
Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (4) finding?
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
2 We also modify the remedy section of the Intermediate Report to substitute the word
"more" for the word "less " in the third sentence of the second paragraph . As modified,
the sentence will provide that if computation of back pay for the period from April 12,
1949, to June 6, 1949, is more than the amount already paid Axthelm, the difference shall
be paid to him.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Henrich Lumber, Inc.,
Buffalo, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Encouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, District Council of Buffalo and Vicin-
ity, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of its employees, or any term or condition of their
employment, except to the extent permitted by the proviso to Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights 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 immediate and full reinstatement to Paul Axthelm
and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its plant at Buffalo, New York, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3
Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Third Region, after having been duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date hereof, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it al-
leges independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and vio-
lations of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act.
3 However , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to the Recommendations
of a Trial Examiner" the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order ," and the last sentence
in the text of the notice shall be omitted . In the event that this Order is enforced by a
decree of the United States Court of Appeals , there shall be further substituted the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
HENRICH LUMBER, INC.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1273
Upon charges filed on April 12, 1949, in Case No. 3-CA-159, and on October 30,
1950, in Case No. 3-CA-358, by Paul Axthelm, herein called the Charging Party,
the General Counsel by the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo,
New York), of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
issued his complaint dated September 24, 1951, against Henrich Lumber, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and the charges, together with an order consolidating
the cases and a notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent and
the Charging Party.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended alleged
in substance that the Respondent had discriminated against Paul Axthelm
on or about April 12, 1949, and on or about July 10, 1950, and engaged in certain
independent acts of interferences, restraint, and coercion beginning in October
1948.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on October 9, 1951, at Buffalo, New
York, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The parties were represented by counsel. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues, was afforded the parties. The parties presented oral
argument at the close of the hearing and only the General Counsel filed a brief.
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 in the course and conduct of its business operations during
the calendar year 1950, purchased raw materials, supplies, and equipment valued
in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 50 percent of which was purchased from
sources outside the State of New York and shipped directly to the Respondent's
place of business in Buffalo, New York. During the same period, the Respondent
manufactured, sold, and distributed interior woodwork, cabinets, and other
related wood products and sold and distributed lumber, plywood, insulation,
and other related products of a total value in excess of $1,800,000, approximately
5 percent of which was sold and shipped directly to customers located outside
the State of New York. It is found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, District Council
of Buffalo and Vicinity, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
Paul Axthelm, a bench hand, was first employed by the Respondent in 1927
on a seasonal basis until January 1944. At that time Axthelm became a regular
employee and continued with the Respondent until 1945, when he voluntarily
quit his employment. Axthelm returned to the Respondent's employ in December
1946, and was regularly employed thereafter until April 12, 1949, when the
Respondent discharged him at the request of the United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, District Council of Buffalo and Vicinity, here-
inafter called the Union. Axthelm thereupon filed charges with the Board the
same day resulting in Case No. 3-CA-159.
The circumstances of this discharge are briefly as follows. Axthelm had
been a member of the Union. About a half year prior to his discharge he and
the Union became involved in a dispute which grew out of Axthelm's refusal
to picket a certain job at the instruction of the Union, and a fine was assessed
against him for this refusal. At this time and for several years past the
Respondent and the Union had a closed-shop contract thereby exceeding
the extent of union security permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act' The
employees had not then by referendum under Section 9 (e) authorized any form
of union security. After the Union explained Axthelm's delinquency to the
Respondent, the Union obtained his discharge.
After Axthelm filed the charges referred to above and also a charge against
the Union, the Respondent on June 6, reinstated him to his former position as
bench hand, the Respondent and the Union having explained to the Regional
Office that Axthelm was being reinstated to establish a cutoff date and thereby
stop the accumulation of back pay. Axthelm continued in this employment
until August 26, when he was laid off in a reduction in force due to business
reasons. Efforts were made to work out a settlement of the matter, but it was
not until May 17, 1950, when the case was noticed for hearing that a settlement
agreement between the Charging Party and the Respondent was executed and a
formal hearing was not held.
This settlement agreement in Case No. 3-CA-159, approved by the Regional
Director, provided, among other things, for (1) the posting of a notice to the
Respondent's employees for 60 days, which notice was attached to and made part
of the agreement, and which notice stated that the Respondent would, (a) not
encourage membership in the Union or any other labor organization by dis-
criminatory discharge or by discriminating in any manner in regard to hire,
tenure, or any term or condition of employment, (b) not in any other manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in'the right to refrain from the
concerted activities guaranteed the employees under Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be effected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act, (c) make the Charging Party whole for any loss of
pay he suffered as a result of the discrimination; (2) compliance with the terms
of the notice, just described; (3) payment to the Charging Party of $515.93 to
make him whole; (4) certain notice of compliance with the agreement by the
1 Article 1 of this agreement provided :
The parties of the first part [ the Respondent ] hereby agrees to employ in its factory,
mill or establishment , only such members of the party of the second part who are in
good standing and who carry the current paid up book of the party of the second
part, in accordance with the By-Laws and Constitution of the Buffalo District Council,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
HENRICH LUMBER, INC. 1275
Charging Party and the Respondent; (5) withdrawal of the charge and the com-
plaint to become effective when the Regional Director was satisfied that the
provisions of the agreement had been carried out. No provision was made for
the reinstatement of the Charging Party. On July 27 the Regional Director
notified the Respondent by letter that Case No. 3-CA-159 was closed.
In the interim , in about the middle of June and about a month after the settle-
ment agreement was executed, Axthelm went to the Respondent 's plant and was
informed by Fred Bretl, the superintendent, that there was no work. Axthelm
reappeared at the plant on July 10, the day the discrimination is alleged to have
occurred. After observing to Bretl that the work appeared to be on the incline,
he inquired of Bretl, "Can you hire me?"; and Bretl replied in the negative.
Axthelm pointed out that his quarrel had been with the Union and not with the
Respondent , and Bretl explained that he could see nothing wrong in hiring Ax-
thelm when they needed men. Axthelm stated that he would return and in
closing stated, "Maybe next time you can have a chance to hire me." 2
Although the Respondent was not under any contract obligation with the Union
to rehire laid-off employees, it was the Respondent's general policy to do so. The
Respondent's records show that, in fact, on this day July 10, it rehired another
laid-off bench hand whose services with the Respondent had commenced in May
1948, after Axthelm was first regularly employed. These records also show that
2 weeks later, on July 24, the Respondent hired a new bench hand.
On August 26 or 28, when Axthelm next applied for work he saw some bench
hands working there whom he had not noticed when he was there last. Axthelm
asked Bretl again for a job. Bretl stated that the last time Axthelm was there
someone reported it to George H. Pearce, president of the Respondent. Bretl
also stated that Pearce asked him, Bretl, what Axthelm had wanted, and he
replied that Axthelm had asked for a job, and that Pearce instructed him to
send Axthelm to him, Pearce, when Axthelm came in again. Axthelm thereupon
went to see Pearce. Axthelm asked Pearce for a job and Pearce explained that
he did not hire the men. Axthelm pointed out that some men had been hired
and that there was a good deal of work at the plant. Pearce told Axthelm that
he was a troublemaker and had made all the trouble he was going to make, that
he should leave the premises, and that the Respondent had settled the case with
him and did not want anything further to do with him.' Axthelm thereupon
left the plant and thereafter on October 30, 1950, filed the charge in Case No.
3-CA-358, alleging post settlement agreement conduct only.
Pearce explained at the hearing that the trouble he had reference to was
Axthelm's pestering or bothering everybody in the plant, and coming in all the
while and talking to the men. Pearce had previously testified, however, that
he did not remember having been informed that Axthelm had been in the plant
and that Axthelm might have been in the plant, many times, but that he did
not know about it. Pearce also explained in his testimony, on this subject,
"A man keeps coming in bothering, when you don't want to hire him, he keeps
bothering you in the plant, isn't that trouble?"' About a month after Axtbelm's
last application for work according to its records, the Respondent filled another
bench hand job with another new employee.
As already noted, the Respondent and the Union have had contractual rela-
tions for several years. These relations were in existence at the time of the
2 The findings as to the July 10 interview are based upon a synthesis of Axthelm's and
Bretl's testimony.
3 The findings as to this conversation between Pearce and Axthelm are based upon the
testimony of both individuals.
While Axthelm was in the Respondent 's employ it does not appear that the Respondent
experienced any difficulties as to discipline with him.
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing and on July 10, 1950, when the discriminatory refusal to hire is alleged
to have occurred. The General Counsel took the position that there was not an
illegal contract between the Respondent and the Union on that date."
B. Conclusions
The complaint in addition to a discriminatory discharge on April 12, 1949,
and a discriminatory refusal to rehire on July 10, 1950, alleges certain independ-
ent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act beginning in October 1948. The
record does not support these allegations of independent violations of 8 (a) (1)
of the Act, and it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in this respect.
As a defense, the Respondent urges in its answer that, "on or about the 17th
day of May, 1950, the alleged unfair labor practices described in the said com-
plaint were compromised and settled by the parties to this proceeding and as
a result of such settlement, it was agreed and understood that the respondent
herein be under no duty or obligation to rehire or reinstate employee, Paul
Axthelm."
As noted above, the settlement agreement itself contains no provision con-
cerning the subject of reinstating or rehiring Axthelm. It appears that the
Respondent was under the impression and understood that by' entering the
settlement agreement, it would have no further obligations under the Act toward
Axthelm.° There is no doubt that freedom from future obligations under the
Act toward Axthelm represents, as the Respondent contends, at least one of
its purposes in signing the agreement. During the negotiations it was pointed
out by the Regional Office that the settlement agreement would not require a
reinstatement provision in view of the fact that the Respondent had already
reinstated Axthelm. The Regional Office also took the position that Axthelm
was nondiscriminatorily laid off thereafter in reduction in force. Had such
an agreement as the Respondent contends in fact been reached, it would be the
equivalent of a grant of immunity to the Respondent for subsequent violations
of the Act. This is, of course, beyond the authority of any official of the Board.
It is found on the basis of the foregoing findings of fact that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Axthelm on April 12, 1949, at the request of the
Union, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and hence 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
It is also found that on July 10, 1950, when there was a bench hand vacancy,
and at all times thereafter that the Respondent, holding the view that it was
under no further obligations under the Act as to Axthelm by virtue of the settle-
ment agreement, refused to employ Axthelm because he had asserted his rights
under,Section 8 (a) (3) and because he filed charges under the Act to effectuate
those rights. It is accordingly also found that on July 10, 1950, and thereafter
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (4) and thereby violating Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
In making these findings the undersigned has not been unmindful of the
settlement agreement entered into on May 17, 1950, and the closing of the case
thereafter on July 27, pursuant to the settlement agreement. The undersigned
5A union-security referendum authorizing a proper union-security provision was not
held until October 1950. Case No. 3-UA-1345. .
6 Some of the Respondent 's significant testimony on this point follows :
. . . Rightfully or wrongfully I was under the impression if we complied-I say
"we", I mean the Respondent, Henrich Lumber Company-complied with the affirma-
tive requirement of the settlement agreement that that not only would be the end
of the case but that would be the end of Mr . Axthelm as far as the company was
concerned . That was my understanding of the agreement and that is why we
signed it.
HENRICH LUMBER, INC. 1277
has, in accordance with the Board practice, gone behind that agreement because
of subsequent violations of the Act and the settlement agreement.'
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 described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Paul
Axthelm on April 12, 1949, and thereafter reinstated him on June 6, and made
certain payment to him for back pay under a settlement agreement." It will
therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make Axthelm
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him during the above period using the method of computation herein-
after described and grant to him such seniority or other rights or privileges,
if any, he would have enjoyed had he been employed during this period. After
the proper computation of the back pay sum is made in accordance with the
Board's usual policies and practice, if the sum is less than the amount already
paid Axthelm under the settlement agreement, the difference shall be paid over
to Axthelm ; if after this computation is made, the amount paid under the
settlement agreement is more than the proper sum then the difference shall be
applied to the liability for the period beginning July 10, 1950. Having found
that the Respondent discriminatorily refused to rehire Axthelm beginning July
10, 1950, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to offer Axthelm
immediate employment with such seniority and other rights and privileges as
he would have enjoyed had he been employed on July 10, if any, and further
that the Respondent shall make Axthelm whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of the Respondent's discriminatory refusal to hire him
from July 10, to the date employment is offered. Consistent with the Board's
policy enunciated in F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289, it will be recommended
that the loss of back pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar
quarter or portion thereof during the period from April 12 to June 6, 1949, and
during the period from the Respondent's discriminatory action on July 10, 1950,
in refusing Axthelm employment to the data of a proper offer of employment.
7 The Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 323 U S 248, 253. See, The Board's Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure . Series 5, Section 202.7.
" The record is not clear that the amount paid Axthelm by the Respondent under the
settlement agreement represents the total which was arrived at by computations made in
accordance with the Board 's usual practice . There is some testimony by the Respondent,
which arose incidentally while the Respondent sought to show the validity of its position
regarding its purpose in entering into the settlement agreement , that the amount pro-
vided for in the settlement agreement represents the back pay due for this period. No
basis for this conclusion was shown . The amount of hack pay due in an individual case
is not, as a matter of Board practice , an issue at this stage of the proceeding but is
normally left for the compliance stage. The parties did not seek to litigate this matter
and it is not disposed of here.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The quarterly periods, hereinafter called quarters, shall begin with the first day
of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by
deducting from a sum equal to that which these employees normally would have
earned for each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings (Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7),
if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular
quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
It is also recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to
the Board upon request payroll and the other records to facilitate the checking
of the back pay due.
The Respondent's infractions of the Act, herein found, disclose a fixed purpose
to defeat the self-organization and its objectives. Because of the Respondent's
unlawful conduct and its underlying purposes, the undersigned is persuaded that
the unfair labor practices found are related to the other unfair labor practices
proscribed by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to
be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The pre-
ventative purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedial order is co-
extensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interde-
pendent guarantee of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of the unfair labor prac-
tices, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that
the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the followine:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, District Council
of Buffalo and Vicinity, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of Paul Axthelm, on
April 12, 1949, and July 10, 1950, thereby encouraging membership in the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, District Council of Buffalo
and Vicinity, and because he filed charge under the Act the Respondent engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) and (4) of the Act.
3. By thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in any independent violations of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A ,
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT COUNCIL OF BUFFALO AND VICINITY, or
ACE HANDLE CORPORATION 1279
any other labor organization , by discriminatorily discharging any of our em-
ployees, by refusing to employ any person or discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or
conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Paul Axthelm immediate and suitable employment and make
him whole for any loss of pay or other rights and privileges he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
All employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named union or any other labor organization except to the extent
that the right to refrain may be affected by lawful agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment . We will not dis-
criminate against any employee or applicant for employment in regard to his
hire or tenure of his employment or any term or condition of employment because
of, or the lack of, membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organiza-
tion. Nor will we discriminate against any employee because he has filed charges
under the Act.
HENRICH LUMBER COMPANY, 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.
ACE HANDLE CORPORATION and ARVIL PURIFOY . Case No. 15-CA-351.
September 30, 1952
Decision and Order
On February 27, 1952, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and both the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed supporting briefs. The Respondent's re-
quest for oral argument was denied inasmuch as the record and brief,
in our opinion, adequately reflects the issues and positions of the
parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
100 NLRB No. 230.