Keith Furnace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 754 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of KEITH FURNACE COMPANY and UNITED PRODUCTION-
AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES , L. I. U. No. 1465, C. I. O.
Case No. 18-C-1204.-Decided April 30,1947
Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr. Guy A. Miller, of Des Moines, Iowa, for the respondent.
Mr. Harry Booth, of Des Moines , Iowa, for the Union.
Mr. Ben Law, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 19, 1946 , Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler 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 In-
termediate Report attached hereto. In his Intermediate Report, the
Trial Examiner also found that the respondent did not discriminate
in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Frank E . David-
son, Pearl Allen , Robert Doyle, and Sylvester Forrester , as alleged
in the complaint, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
as to them. Thereafter , the respondent filed exceptions to those por-
tions of the Intermediate Report adverse to it, and a supporting
brief.'
The Board has reviewed ' the Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report , the respondent 's brief and exceptions , and the en-
tire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, addi-
tions, and modifications hereinafter set forth.
1. We agree with the Trial. Examiner that the respondent violated
Section 8 ( 1) of the Act by the participation of General Manager Reh-
mann in the preparation and execution of affidavits in which the re-
I Inasmuch as no other exceptions have been filed, we adopt the Trial Examiner's rec-
ommendation that the complaint be dismissed as to Davidson, Allen, Doyle , and Forrester.
73 N. L. R. B., No. 144.
754
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 755
spondent's employees repudiated the Union. Rehmann's activity, for
which the respondent is clearly responsible by reason of his top-rank-
ing supervisory and managerial authority, in preparing the affidavits
and facilitating their execution by employees in his office, encouraged
and crystallized opposition to the Union, exerted pressure on the em-
ployees to reveal their support of or opposition to the Union without
the protection of a secret ballot, and thereby interfered with and re-
strained their freedom of self-organization. We also agree with the
Trial Examiner that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act
by Foundry Superintendent Joynes' statement to employee Frank
Mathews that, "You guys have all got your necks sticking out."
Joynes ranked in supervisory authority immediately under Rehmann,
and had the power to discharge employees. His statement to Mathews
was made immediately after a discussion of the Union between Joynes
and a group of employees, in which Robert Turner, an employee, told
Joynes that Mathews, Turner, and one other employee had joined the
Union. Joynes prefaced his statement to Mathews, set forth above,
with the comment that an earlier attempt to form a union in the re-
spondent's plant had failed.2 Under the circumstances, we find that.
Joynes' statement, "You guys have all got your necks sticking out,"re-
ferred to those employees who joined the Union, and that Joynes'
statement carried the unmistakable meaning that employees who
joined or assisted the Union thereby risked economic reprisal by the
respondent. The statement clearly was coercive.s In view of the
foregoing unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section. 8
(1) of the Act, we find it unnecessary to determine whether other state-
ments made to the employees by Joynes,-statements which were found
by the Trial Examiner to be unlawful-violated the Act.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged Earl Reasoner. There is no
evidence in the record that the respondent knew of Reasoner's mem-
bership or activity in the Union before his discharge . Reasoner
testified without contradiction that about 2 months before his discharge
ho told General Manager Rebmann that he, Reasoner, had been a union
member at places of previous employment and that his brother was a
representative of a union not involved in this proceeding. Although
this testimony may furnish a reasonable basis for an inference that
1 Our findings as to Joynes' statement to Mathews are based , upon the testimony of
Turner, which we, like the Trial Examiner, credit . We do not credit Joynes' denial of
having warned employees that they had their "necks sticking out" ; nor do we credit his
testimony that he explained to the employees that a previous attempt to organize the
empingees had failed because the union involved would not admit Negroes as members.
Joynes did not deny Turner's testimony that he had told Joynes that Mathews was one
of those who had joined the Union.
8 Cf. N. L. R. B. V. C . D. Beck & Co., 167 F, (2d) 5 14 (C. C. A. 6), enf 'g 63 N. L. R. B.
1426, cert . denied March 17, 1947.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent thereafter suspected that Reasoner was a union ad-
herent, we are not convinced that the respondent discharged Reasoner
because of union adherence.
Reasoner had a long record of absences from duty.4 General Man-
ager Rehmann testified, without denial, that he told Reasoner at the
time of his discharge that his dismissal resulted, among other things,
from Reasoner's "irregularity" in attendance.' Rebmann also testified
that many of Reasoner's absences were unauthorized. The Trial Ex-
aminer construed this testimony to mean that Rehmann had attributed
Reasoner's discharge to "unauthorized absences," discredited Reh-
mann's testimony that certain of the absences were unauthorized, and
found no merit in the respondent's defense based on the absences. We
disagree with the Trial Examiner. The total number of Reasoner's
admitted absences, whether authorized or not, is large enough to estab-
lish an impairment of his value as an employee to the respondent and
indicates, as the respondent contends, that his irregularity in attend-
ance was a major factor which motivated his discharge. In addition,
the respondent subsequently offered to reemploy Reasoner in its
foundry. Rehmann testified, without contradiction, that, once in
January and again in February 1946, Reasoner's wife asked Rebmann
to reinstate her husband, and that, on each occasion, Rebmann replied
that Reasoner could return to work in the foundry, where he had first
been employed, but that Rehmann did not regard Reasoner as being
sufficiently mature to perform the job as shipping clerk. We credit
this testimony by Rehmann.
4 Thus, after he became assistant shipping clerk on August 13, 1945, Reasoner was
admittedly absent during all or part of the following days • August 16 and 25 ;
September 1, 3 to 8, 12, 17, 26 and 27 ; October 8 , November 28, 29 and 30 ; and Decem-
ber 1. There is conflicting testimony, which the Trial Examiner did not resolve, as to a
tardiness by Reasoner on December 26, and as to whether he was absent during 2 half-
days in January 1946, before his discharge As to the tardiness, Rehmann testified that
he asked, Reasoner and others to be at work promptly at 8 • 00 a in on December 26 to
do a particular job and that Reasoner ariived more than an hour late saying that he
had overslept. Reasoner testified that he was only 10 minutes late on this occasion and
that the tardiness was caused by a blizzard and a failure to obtain transportation.
Rebmann testified that Reasoner was absent without permission for 2 half-days in January
before his discharge and Reasoner denied being absent in January. We do not consider
it necessary to resolve these conflicts in the testimony
We note that certain of Reasoner's absences were for compelling personal reasons, such
as illness, examination for the army, and his marriage Neither that fact, nor Rebmann a
admitted praise of Reasoner as a "good worker" and "good boy" when talking to Reasoner's
mother during November when lie was ill, detracts from our conclusion, hereinafter set
forth, that his absences were numerous enough to impair his value as the respondent's
shipping clerk
5 Reasoner testified that, at the time of his discharge, he was told by Rehmann that the
discharge was occasioned by the fact that Davidson, an assistant"shipping clerk, was being
replaced Reasoner did not testify that Davidson's replacement was the only reason
assigned by Rehmann nor did he specifically deny Rehmann's vei sron of the conversation.
Relunann testified that he also told Reasoner at the time of the discharge that lie liked
Reasoner personally but that, in addition to his "irregularity" in attendance, he had made
"too many mistakes" in his work and was, in Rehmann's opinion, not qualified for the
job as shipping clerk because of insufficient education.
D
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 757
Under the foregoing circumstances, we find that the evidence fails
to establish that Reasoner was discharged because of union activity,
and we shall accordingly dismiss the complaint as to him.
3. The Trial Examiner found that, although the respondent ex-
pressed a willingness to meet and consider the Union's request for col-
lective bargaining, it did so with a fixed determination to evade its
responsibilities under the Act, and thereby violated Section 8 (5) of
the Act.
As the Trial Examiner found, when Harry Booth, the Union's rep-
resentative, first requested a bargaining conference with the respond-
ent, General Manager Rebmann stated, in substance, that he did not
know whether he wanted a CIO union in the plant, that he wanted to
"call" the AFL, and that he could not then meet because lie was shortly
to leave town on a business trip which would last for about 10 days,
but that, in the meantime, Booth could communicate with the respond-
ent's attorney. Booth immediately called the respondent's attorney
and asked him to explain. to Rehmann the respondent's obligations un-
der the Act. Later, during the same day, Rehmann tel6phoned Booth
and expressed a willingness to meet with the Union at any time after
January 27,1946, stating that he planned, to have completed the sched-
uled business trip by that date. However, there was no definite date
set for a meeting; shortly thereafter, Rebmann left town on the busi-
ness trip; and there was no subsequent effort at any time by the Union
or the respondent to meet or confer.
There is no evidence that Rehmann's business trip was in itself
a pretext to evade collective bargaining, or that it was utilized for
that purpose. In concluding that the respondent treated the Union's
request for bargaining in bad faith, the Trial Examiner relied (1)
on Rehmann's remarks, when first confronted with the Union's re-
quest for a conference, that he did not know whether he wanted a
CIO union in the plant, and that he wanted to "call" the AFL; (2)
on Foundry Superintendent Joynes' statements to the employees con-
cerning organization; (3) on his finding that the discharge of Earl
Reasoner was unlawful; and (4) on Rehmann's participation in the
preparation of employee affidavits repudiating the Union. We have
found that Reasoner's discharge was not discriminatory. It does not,
therefore, tend to show bad faith. The other three factors suggest bad
faith on the part of the respondent in its dealings with the Union.
However, under the circumstances of this case, we do not consider
them to be controlling. Joynes' statements to the employees were, as
the Trial Examiner found, not part of any plan of interference by
the respondent. Rehi ann's participation in the preparation of the
affidavits, occurring, as it did, approximately 5 months after the
Union's request for a conference and the respondent's reply thereto,
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is insubstantial support for a finding that the reply was made in bad
faith. The discriminatory intent, suggested by Rehmann's statement
to the Union at the time of the request to bargain, that he did not know
whether he wanted a CIO union in the plant and that he wished to
consult with another union, must be discounted in view of his expres-
sion immediately, thereafter, without any unlawful qualification, of
a willingness to meet with the Union. The bona /Ides of the respond-
ent could best have been tested at that juncture by further affirmative
steps by the Union looking toward a definite meeting date and col-
lective bargaining. We conclude that the evidence in this case falls
short of establishing such bad faith on the part of the respondent in
its dealings with. the Union as constituted a refusal to bargain within
the meaning of the Act. We shall accordingly dismiss the complaint.
insofar as it alleges a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Keith Furnace Company,
Des Moines, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Making threats to its employees that it will withdraw or with-
hold any employment benefits from them, or otherwise take reprisals
against them, for forming, joining, or assisting United Production
and Service, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. I. 0., or any other
labor organization;
(b) Participating with its employees in the preparation of bar-
gaining authorization or membership withdrawals from United Pro-
duction and Service, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. I. 0., or any
other labor organization;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant at Des Moines, Iowa, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." e Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by i.t immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
6 In the event that this order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, the
notice shall be amended by inserting , before the words "A Decision and Order," the words
"A Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing . . .
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 759
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively with United Production and Service Employees,
Local Industrial Union No. 1465, CIO, and discriminated in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment of Earl E. Reasoner, Frank E.
Davidson, Pearl Allen, Robert Doyle, and Sylvester Forrester.
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 :
AVE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold from our employees
any employment benefits, or otherwise take reprisals against them,
for joining, forming, or assisting United Production and Service
Employees, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. I. 0., or any
other labor organization.
AVE WILL NOT participate in any way with our employees
in the preparation of bargaining authorization or membership
withdrawals by them from United Production and Service Em-
ployees, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. I. 0., or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union, or any other labor organization.
------------------------------
(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
Mr. Stephen H. Reynolds , for the Board.
Mr. Guy A hiller, of Des Moines , Iowa, for the respondent.
hr. Hai ry Booth , of Des Moines, Iowa, for the Union.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge duly filed by United Production and Service
Employees, Local Industrial Union No 1465, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint, dated May 28, 1946,
against Keith Furnace Company, Des Moines, Iowa, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint, together with notice of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that on or about January 8, 1946. and at all times thereafter, the iespondent
refused and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit; that on certain
specified dates, the respondent discharged or failed and refused to recall to work
employees Frank E. Davidson, Earl E. Reasoner. Pearl Allen, Robert Doyle. and
Sylvester Forrester because of their union affiliation and activities; and that
from on or about November 30, 1945. up to the date of the complaint, the re-
spondent disparaged and expressed disapproval of the Union, warned and
discouraged employees concerning their union membership and activities,
threatened employees with reduction in pay and job classifications if they were
organized, and questioned employees concerning their union membership and
activities In its answer, dated June 11. 1946, the respondent denies that it
committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Des Moines, Iowa, on June 11, 12,
and 13, 1946, before the undersigned, Sidney L Feeler, the Trial Examiner
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel; the Union, by a representative Full oppoitunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing
on the issues was afforded all parties During the hearing, counsel for the
Board moved to amend the specification of the appropriate unit as alleged in
the complaint to conform to an agreement of counsel as to certain exclusions.
This motion was granted without objection. At the close of the Board's case,
counsel for the Board moved to confoini the pleadings to the proof as to formal
matters. The motion was granted without objection. After the introduction
of all the evidence, counsel for the Board and the respondent presented oral
argument. Opportunity was then afforded all parties to file briefs, but they
indicated that none would be filed and none were received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses
the undersigned makes the following.
FINDING OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF TILE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an Iowa corporation having its office and piincipal place
of business at Des Moines, Iowa Its chief business consists of the manufacture,
sale, and installation of heating equipment During 1945, total sales were ap-
proximately $199,000, of which approximately $130.000 consisted of heating equip-
ment manufactured and installed by the respondent To produce this equipment,
the respondent purchased approximately $20.000 of manufactured products, all of
which came from points outside the State of low a The i espoudent also manu-
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 761
factured equipment at its plant for this poi tion of its business using raw material
valued at approximately $15,000 to $20,000, all of which was purchased in Iowa.
Another item of business of the respondent was the sale at wholesale and retail of
heating equipment where the respondent did not do any installation work. The
business amounted to approximately $40,000 in 1945 and approximately $10,000
was expended by the respondent in out-of-state purchases to produce the equip-
ment sold. The remaining items of business consisted of the sale of miscellaneous
products such as roofing and insulation and the sale of real estate. Total sales
by the respondent in 1945 to points outside the State of Iowa were approximately
$2,800 In 1946, purchases from outside the State were on the increase. Sales
outside the State were at approximately the same figure as in the previous year'
The respondent denies that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. It contends that its total sales are not large, that of those sales only 2°%0
were made to points outside the State of Iowa making applicable the maxim of
de mtnlniis and that its purchases from without the State of Iowa came to rest
at its plant and were stored prior to further use
The evidence indicated that the respondent annually purchases between $20,000
and $30,000 of finished products and material from points outside the State of
Iowa The undersigned finds that a labor dispute in the respondent's plant would
burden or obstruct the free flow of commerce and finds that the respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the act!
II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED'
United Pioduction and Service Employees, Local Industrial Union No 1465,
is an organization chartered by the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Its
purpose is to organize employees in plants operating in the Des Moines area for
the improvement of their wages, lio,irs, and working conditions The Under-
signed hulls that said organization is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondent
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion.
While some employees had discussed the possibility of forming a union before
January 1946, actual organizing efforts did not begin until that month. As appears
hereinafter, application cam ds were distributed in January and between the 5th
and the 8th a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit had signed them
Robert Joynes was superintendent of the foundry at all times here relevant
According to employee George Turner, it group of the foundry workers decided
that they wanted to have Joynes know that some of them were joining the Union.
Turner, acting as spokesman, so informed Joynes As Turner put it, "I says •
there is quite a few of us had joined, already signed cards, and I Said there is a few
other stragglers speaking as if they would join if you knew it, so I wish you would
'The findings herein are based upon the testimony of General Manager John C Reb-
mann Earl Reasoner, who was employed in the shipping department in the last half of
1945, testified that out-of-state shipments were much greater than Rebmann had indicated.
The undcisigned deems it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony
2N L R B v Huy Depai tment Stoics Coeipany, 326 U S 376, affirming 146 F (2d) 66
(C C A 8) N L R B v J L Brandeis it Sons, 145 F ( 2d) 556 (C C A 8) . N L R B.
v Cowell Portland Cement Co, 148 F (2d) 237, (C C A 9), cert den 326 U S 735;
N L R B v H G Hill Stores, Inc, 140 F (2d) 924 (C C A 5) , N L R B v Poultrg-
seen's Service Corp, 133 F (2d) 204 (C C A 3) , N L R B v. Richter's Bakery, 140
F (2d) 870 (C C A 5)
The findings in this section are based upon the testimony of Harry Booth , president of
the Union and one of its organizers
762 DECTSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
call the men together so we could have a show down " Joynes then called a group
of the men together and spoke to them Approximately 18 to 25 men listened to
him. Turner fixed the date of the incident as January 9; others as January 8.
The witnesses disagreed as to exactly what Joynes said Joynes testified and
summarized his talk to the men as follows:
George Turner, and a few of the other men, wanted to know what I thought
about them joining the union. I told George and the rest of the men that
that had to be their business If they wanted a union, to join the union.
If they didn't want a union, they didn't have to join a union. Then they
began talking about wage rates I told them that if the shop went union,
that we would have to work the union wage scale.
I think at that time most foundries in Des Monies had a starting wage of
591/2 cents an hour 1 told them if that was the case, there wouldn't be any
more 70 cents an hour; we couldn't start a man for that; that we had to
work on what the union scale made allowance for and the prevailing wage
scale'
Yes. I explained to them the fact that it they were in the union, that they
wouldn't be able to come to nie and have any grievances settled at all what-
soever; the union man would have to settle it for them. If one o1 them had
to take fifteen minutes off to run and get downtown before a store closed,
we couldn 't stand for that any more because if that thing was set up in a
union contract, there would be eight hours a di work; that I would like
right strict on the union contract, and they have to, too.
He admitted on cross-examination that he had told the men that the A. F. L.
was a better union than the C. I. 0 and that they had made a mistake in joining
the C I 0. He further testified as to what he said concerning wage rates, as
follows :
Q. You knew, did you not, that there was considerable variation from one
working place to another as far as the wages of the employees are concerned?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew the matter of wage rates was a matter of collective
bargaining, or bargaining between the company and the union?
A. Yes.
Q Why did you assume that if the union came in, the scale for laborers
would be 571/i cents an hour?
A. Because I thought they would take the same scale as the rest of the
foundries in Des Moines.
Q Well, did you know what the scale was in all the Des Moines foundries?
A. No, but I thought it was 571/2 cents.
Q. Did you make any investigation to find that out?
A. No.
Q But you told the men pretty definitely that that would be the rate
in this foundry if the Union came in?
A. Yes
Q And the effect of that on these men would be that most of them would
have to take a cut, isn't that right, because there is only one journeyman
molder?
* Joynes explained the above statement by testifying that some of the men were getting
molders ' wages although they did not have the union qualifications for molders, that he
meant that if the Union came in these employees would be reclassified to lower titles and
their wages would be regulated accordingly.
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 763
A. Not necessarily There was some men there that had worked at the
trade longer than others.
Q You gave the men, though , to understand that all would be cut to 571/2
cents?
A No. There was a few of them thought that was what I meant, but I
had other men there that knew I didn 't mean that.
Q Well , what you said is what is important . What did you tell them
with reference to the 571/2 cents?
A. I told them that if the union scale was 57% cents , that we would have
to abide by the union scale.
Q. And if other witnesses here have testified that you said the employees
would be cut to 571/2 cents if the union came in, they would be in error?
A. Sir?
Q. If the other witnesses who have testified here, testified you said if the
union came in they would be cut to 571/2 cents, that other testimony is
wrong?
A. I didn ' t say that they would be cut. That wouldn ' t be up to me. That
would be up to whatever the contract would be, or the management with the
union.
Q So you didn 't use the word cut at all?
A I might have possibly said cut, yes
Turner testified that later in the same day that Joynes spoke to the men, he,
Turner, overheard a conversation between Joynes and employee Elmer Scovel,
in which Scovel asked Joynes what General Manager Rehmann thought of the
Union , and that Joynes had replied , "Well, lie thinks of it as I do , that it is
all bunk " Joynes denied making that statement, but lie admitted that he did
have a talk with Scovel , as follows :
Q Didn 't you state in your affidavit that Elmer Scovel came to you the
next day and asked you why you preferred the A F. of L. over the C. I. 0?
A. If it says on that paper I did.
Q Didn 't you state that you then went into the craft structure of the
A. F of L and why you considered it was better for the employees?
A. I believe so
Q And didn' t Mr Scovel ask you what Mr. Rehmann thought of the com-
parative merits of the two organizations , and didn 't you tell him that lie
would think the same way that you did about it?
A. Yes
Turner also testified that he overheard Joynes tell employee Frank Matthews
that attempts to form a union in the plant previously had failed and that the
men had their "necks sticking out." Joynes denied that he had ever made that
statement and maintained that he had merely told the employees that a previous
attempt to form a union had failed when the union concerned had refused to
admit colored employ ees.
The undersigned was impressed by the testimony of Turner as an effort to give
a straightforward account of what he had heard Joynes, on the other hand,
did not so impress the undersigned. His direct testimony was materially different
from that on his cross-examination When reminded that he had made a prior
affidavit concerning the case, he amplified his direct testimony and changed his
testimony to give a different picture. Turner's testimony is credited
5 Former employee Earl Reasoner testified that in Novenibei 1945, Joynes told him in
response to his query as to what he thought of having a union at the plant, that he did
not think a union would do any good at the plant, that the Des Moines unions were "bunk,"
no good, and "small-time outfits." Reasoner's testimony is credited.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joynes' own testimony indicates that in his talk to the employees he indicated
quite clearly that he was not in favor of their joining the Union. He disparaged
the C. I. 0. in comparison to the A. F. of L. and questioned the wisdom of the
employees affiliating with the former. He went further. In reviewing the
probable consequences of the selection of the Union as bargaining agent he dwelt
in detail on the disadvantages that would accrue He stated as a fact that
employees could not and would not be excused for a few minute when necessary.
He further stated that employees would be downgraded in accordance with a
lower union pay scale. He admitted on cross-examination that his knowledge
of any union scale was sketchy and that he knew that pay scales were not ab-
solute but were the subject of collective bargaining There is some dispute as
to whether Joynes expressly told the men their wages would be cut, but that
could be the only reasonable interpretation of his words and employees testified
that that was their understanding. As such, his speech constituted a threat of
economic loss to the employees if they joined the Union. It is true that Joynes
also told the men that they were free to join the Union, if they wished. Also,
his speech was made at the request of employees and was apparently not part of
any plan of interference. However, having undertaken to express his opinion
Jovnes was under a duty not to misstate facts nor to expressly or impliedly
state that the consequences of joining the Union would be a reduction in pay
and less advantageous working conditions. The undersigned finds that the
conduct of Joynes was violative of the Act °
During the hearing, the respondent offered in evidence thirty-two affidavits
signed by employees between June 10 and 13, 1946. These affidavits were re-
ceived in evidence. The affidavits were all in the following form :
STATE OF IOWA
County of PolkJ^ss
I, --------------------, being first duly sworn on oath depose and say
that I am employ,-(! by the Keith Furnace Company of Des Moines, Iowa, as
that my working relations with the Keith Furnace
Company have been and are now entirely satisfactoy to me, that I do not
desire to become a member of any union and do not want any union repre-
sentation for me in dealing with the Keith Furnace Company, as con-
templated by any provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
,. This affidavit is made voluntarily by me and without any solicitation in
favor of or against Union representation by the Keith Furnace Company
of any of its officers or agents, I having been expressly advised that if a
majority of the employees of the company are in favor of Union representa-
tion, the company would co-operate with the Union representatives.
I further depose and say that if a secret election were held to determine
the matter, I 'would vote against union representation.
--------------------------------------------
Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this ---------- day of
June, A. D. 1946.
-----------------------------------------
Notary Public in and for Polk County, Iowa.
General Manager Rebmann testified concerning the background events leading
up to the signing of the affidavits. He testified that since the early part of
February 1946 employees had been coming to him and expressing opposition
to union representation He further testified that approximately two weeks
before the hearing employees approached him with reference to making affidavits.
a ,Hatter of Enid Cooperative Creamery Association , 63 N. L. R. B. 728
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 765
As to this phase, lie testified :
This happened about two weeks ago ; two weeks ago now ; and I asked
them what they had in mind , and these men told me that they had been
talking among themselves and would like to have an election. I was
approached by at least half a dozen men to that effect . Then two or three
of them volunteered that they would write letters , to whom they didn ' t know,
and they wanted to say in substance that they hadn 't asked for any Union
representation and that they would like to have an election , in which they
would vote against Union representation . Several others mentioned that
they had gotten along all right at the Keith Furnace Company and they
didn 't see any sense in outsiders butting in Then I asked a couple of them
to state rather specifically what they had in mind, and they stated in sub-
stance what I dictated on those affidavits.
He also had a talk with employee Ora Miller, he declared , in which Miller
expressed opposition to having a union in the plant and said he would like
to have an election and "get it over with."
Rehmann further testified:
A. I said maybe that will come. He said, "Well, I know how I will vote."
He said, "I know I can quit any time, too," and I asked him if he cared
to assert himself on that subject, and he said, "Yes, I will," and I said, "You
would have to come forward and say so " "Well," he said, "I am ready to."
Q. Well, did you suggest how he should do it, then?
A. He had an idea that he should ;-that we should call an election, and
I said, Well, that would have to be handled in the icgular way; and lie said,
"I am ready to go on record as being against it and as wanting an open shop,
or else."
Q. So what did you say to him?
A. I asked him if he wanted to make an affidavit to that effect, and he
said he did
Q Is that all your conversation?
A. That was the substance, except that he said that he wanted to work
in an open shop, and that if the matter came up for a vote, he knew how
he would vote; and I asked him if he would swear to that before a notary
public, and he said, "Yes, I am ready to sign now."
Q Was that the end of your conversation with him then? Did you imme-
diately prepare the affidavit after lie said this?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You sat down and dictated it in his presence, did you?
A. No, I talked with him the following day. I talked with him the follow-
ing day and asked him to come up in the office and look over something I
had written out to see whether it was what he meant to tell me the day
before, and he said, "I'll be up," and toward quitting time he came up and
looked it all over, and "that is Jake with me." So he signed the three slips
of paper and took them out to Miss Ferris. He took them out of the office
himself. I did not go with him.
Rebmann had the affidavit form mimeographed and employees signed it before
his secretary, Anne Ferris, who notarized them.
Rehmann's own testimony indicates that whether or not the original idea of
formalizing opposition to unionization actually came from him, he channelized
certain inchoate ideas of workmen in the direction of expressing their opposition
as it ultimately was expressed. The language in the affidavit was his. His office
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was thrown open to its signers. His secretary witnessed and notarized the
signatures . The affidavit form itself was a clear expression of opposition to
unionization as well as an open poll of anti-union sentiment.
While each employee signed purportedly of his own free will, the coercion
inplicit in this poll of loyalty to the respondent conducted tinder its sponsorship
and direction is apparent.
The undersigned finds that by Rehmann's activities as above found, the re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced the respondent's employees in
the exercise of their rights under the Act. In view of the fact that the affidavits
were secured as a result of the respondent's unfair labor practices, they cannot
be considered as in any way affecting the union majority status as hereinafter
discussed since the respondent cannot take advantage of its unfair labor practices.
B. The discharges
1 Introduction
The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminated with respect to the
hire and tenure of employment of five employees. Of these, three employees,
Pearl Allen, Frank Davidson. and Earl Reasoner, were discharged by General
Manager Rehmann on January 11, 1946, immediately prior to a shut-down of
operations at the plant for two weeks. Two employees, Robert Doyle and
Sylvester Forrester, were under the supervision of Foreman Robert Joynes who
did not put them back to work at the end of the lay-off
As appears in more detail hereinafter, the Union made a demand for collective
bargaining on January 8. 1946. On January 11 the plant was shut down for
two weeks The Board presented testimony to the effect that this was an
unusual step which had not been taken prior to efforts to unionize the employees.
The respondent contended that this was a step taken every year in January for
the purpose of taking inventory and making necessary repairs
Employee George Turner testified that the shut-down was a novel occurrence,
but he had only been in the employ of the respondent since sometime in January,
1944. Former employee Matt Fountain had been employed intermittently by the
respondent for ten years until he left in February, 1946 He testified that in
prior years inventory had been taken while the men were working and there had
been no stoppage of work
Thomas Toomey, a former employee. testified that he had worked for the
respondent for a short period in October and December 1945 and that he re-
turned on January 14, 1046, to start work under the G I. Training program. He
testified that he worked several hours and quit He further testified that on that
day he talked to Foreman Buschusen and asked him where all the other em-
ployees were and Buschusen replied that some of the trouble workers had been
"weeded out." Buschusen did not testify nor was his failure to testify explained.
The undersigned credits Toomey's testimony.
Both Joynes and Rehmann testified that it was customiuy to close the plant for
inventory and repairs every year. Rehmann testified that the closing usually took
place in January and that there always was a laying off of help. The undersigned
credits their testimony While Toomey's testimony sheds some doubt on the
motives for the 1946 closing, three of the five discharges were made prior to the
lay-off and only two during or at the close of the period. Furthermore. Buschusen
was not shown to have any connection with any of the discharges. The testimony
does not establish that the lay-off was caused by any anti-union motives.
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 767
2. The discharge of Earl E Reasoner
Earl Reasoner was employed by the respondent from July 2, 1945, until his dis-
charge on January ii, 1946 He began work as a laborer in the foundry and
transferred to the shipping department in August as an assistant shipping clerk.
In September he was promoted to shipping clerk and held that position until he
was discharged.
His work, as Rebmann described it, was to "go to the bins to get the materials,
go to the furnace aisle where the furnaces are stacked up ; collect the items ; have
men help him prepare them for shipment; and write out bills of lading; check the
items off of the office orders and put them on Railway Express trucks, or the
trucking company trucks."
Reasoner testified that lie played a part in the formation of the Union He
testified that a Union was discussed by some of the employees in November 1945,
but there were no material results. He also, on suggestion of a brother, a travel-
ling representative for the C I. 0. Rubber Workers Union, spoke with Ben
Henry, a C I. 0. official. He signed a union membership card on January 7. He
further testified that he had solicited employees to join the Union and had ob-
tained five signed membership cards. His testimony is credited
Reasoner also testified, and his testimony is credited, that in December 1945,
Rebmann took him and employee Toin Toomey to lunch, that during the meal vari-
ous 'matters were discussed and that when Reasoner mentioned that his said
brother was a Rubber Worker's Union representative, Rebmann asked him ques-
tions concerning his brother's work and also asked him whether he had ever
belonged to any union Reasoner mentioned two unions.'
Reasoner also testified that his work had been praised and that at the afore-
mentioned lunch with Rebmann, Rebmann spoke of plans to enlarge operations
and praised his work.
Reasoner further testified that on January 11, Rebmann called him into his
office and handed him his check. Rebmann told him that Davidson, the assistant
clerk, was going to be replaced and that he thought he might as well replace him
at the same time. The next day when he returned to the plant to discuss a deduc-
tion from his pay check, Rebmann told him, Reasoner said, that he was a good
worker and would be able to get another job.
Rebmann testified that Reasoner was discharged for cause in that he had a
had record of unauthorized absences and that lie had been warned that Rebmann
could not "put up" with his irregularity Rehmann listed dates when he claimed
Reasoner was absent without permission and when he promised to do better in
the future. Reasoner denied that lie had been guilty of unauthorized absences
and maintained that be had ieceived permission from Rebmann when he had
had to be absent A comparison of the testimony of Rehmann and Reasoner
indicates several points of disagreement where Reasoner's testimony has been
credited and which thereby cast doubt on Rebmann's entire testimony. For
instance, Rebmann testified that Reasoner was absent without permission on
September 26 and 27 and that when he returned to work lie promised to do
better. Reasoner testified, and the undersigned credits his testimony, that he
married at that time and Rehmann knew it. Rehmann further testified that
Reasoner was absent November 28, 29, 30 and December 1 and, upon his return,
Reasoner had another brother, Claude, who had been employed at the plant until Novem-
ber 1945 He quit work at that time, he testified, because Rebmann refused to give him
an increase Before he left, he declared, he told Rebmann that he wished there was a
union In the plant; then he would have obtained an increase Rehmann replied that there
wasn't a union and that there would not be one if be could help it. Rehmann denied
making any such statement His denial is credited.
7 i9926-47-vol 73 50
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that he would soon be married and would do better Reasoner testified
that lie had pneumonia at that time and that his mother so notified Rehmann.
The latt'r admitted receiving the telephone call Because of these instances
and others the undersigned credits Reasoner's testimony and finds that Reas-
oner did not absent himself from work without permission except in cases-of
illness and that he wao not reprimanded for his absences
Rebmann also testified that Reasoner had made incorrect shipments and gave
illustrations. Reasoner admitted that he had made one mistake but denied
that some other mistakes had occurred and that others were due to his negli-
gence. Reasoner also denied Rehmann's charge that he threw refuse on the plant
floor. He admitted that he had made a personal visit with the company truck
as Rehmann testified, but said that he did not continue doing so when Rebmann
asked him to stop His testimony is credited.
Mrs. Irma Reasoner, Earl Reasoner's mother, gave testimony which shed
light on Rehmann's evaluation of Reasoner's work She testified that when
Reasoner was ill with pneumonia, she telephoned Rehmann at his home and
told him of it. She further testified that the conversation proceeded as fol-
lows :
He said he was awful sorry to hear it because Earl was a good boy. He
said, Earl is a good boy and he is a good worker He said, I want you to
know that, Mrs Reasoner. I said I am very happy to hear that He said,
When I tell Earl a thing I don't have to tell him a second time; in fact, he
said, lie does better than the men I have had ten or fifteen years In fact,
he said, he acts like an old man I said, Well, I am very happy to hear you
say that.
Rehmann admitted that Mrs. Reasoner's testimony was substantially cor-
rect and that he gave her to understand "that Earl was a good boy, and that he
was applying himself, and that I wanted to help both of them, he and Claude
[his brother], in every way that I could " Ile also testified, "I have got the
very best of feeling toward both of the Reasoners, and, having been young once
upon a time myself, making lots of errors, I wanted to be all the Christian,
genuine friendliness I could be "
Rehmann's detailed praise of Reasoner's work does not agree with his claim
that Reasoner was an unsatisfactory employee. The undersigned credits the
testimony of Mrs. Reasoner and Earl Reasoner and concludes that Reasoner's
work was considered satisfactory by Rehmann and that his mistakes were ex-
aggerated out of their true proportion as an after thought to justify the summary
action taken against him and that the underlying motive for his discharge must
be sought elsewhere.
As appears hereinafter, on January 8, 1946, the Union made its demand for
recognition and collective bargaining. Rehmann received this demand with
hostility. Furthermore, Reasoner had told Rehmann that his brother was an
employee of the C. I. 0. Rubber Workers, the organization which, as further
appears , he at first thought was making bargaining demands upon him. Reasoner
also had taken a leading part in the organization of employees. The under-
signed finds that these factors, not Reasoner 's work performances, caused Reh-
mann's decision . The undersigned concludes that Reasoner was discharged be-
cause of his union membership and activities.
3. The discharge of Pearl Allen
Pearl Allen was employed as a truck driver' from August 1945 until his dis-
charge on January 11, 1946. He testified that his work had never been criticised.
He further testified that on the date of his discharge he told Al Buschusen,
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 769
foreman of the shipping department, that he was going home at noon and to
give General Manager Rehmann that information. That evening, he testified,
Lehmann telephoned Allen's home and told his wife that he had `walked out
on him" and that his check was in the mail. Allen spoke to Rehmann the next
clay and Rehmann maintained that his work was unsatisfactory and refused
to change his decision.
Allen further testified that on one prior occasion he had left early, had left
a message with employee Earl Reasoner for Rehmann that he was leaving early,
and had received no complaint. Those times and once when he injured his
back were the only absences lie could recall. He admitted on cross-examination
that on the days he left early he did not check to ascertain whether there were
any deliveries to be made that afternoon. When asked about absences on
specific dates, he had no recollection of these absences He maintained that he
had never been criticized or reprimanded for absences.
He testified that he had taken part in the union organizing effort. He had
signed a membership card on January 7. He also had spoken to employees
during the prior month with reference to forming a union and also had solicited
employees to join the Union. This testimony as to his union activity is credited.
Rehmann testified that Allen was discharged for cause. He stated that Allen
had repeatedly been absent without permission, specifically on September 3,
6. October 6, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, November 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and December 31.
On two occasions, Rehmann testified, he warned Allen that he would have to
be steadier in his work and Allen replied that he would do better. Continuing
his testimony, Rehmann stated that thereafter on January 8 and 11, 1946, Allen
walked off the job at noon and that on the latter date he left word at Allen's
home that he was discharged.
Rehmann also testified that Allen's work was unsatisfactory and that he had
received complaints from other employees that Allen did not do his share of
the work. He mentioned an instance on October 12 where lie personally observed
that Allen was shirking.
Allen (lid not deny Rehmann's testimony that he had quit early two days
during his final week of employment. He testified that he understood that he
could do this and had left word for Rehmann, although he admitted that he
had not obtained prior permission. The undersigned was not impressed with
his testimony. He gave no adequate explanation of his absence record and his
testimony was vague and incomplete on other points. The undersigned credits
Rehmann's testimony and finds that the evidence does not establish that Allen
«as discharged because of his union activities.
4. The discharge of Frank Davidson
Frank Davidson was employed as a shipping clerk working with Reasoner
from October 22, 1945, until his employment was terminated on January 11,
1946.
Reasoner testified that on that day Davidson came to him and told him
that Rehmann had discharged him because he was going into the army. While
Davidson had been expecting to be inducted, he was not actually inducted
until about a month later, Reasoner testified. Reasoner further stated that
he had heard Rebmann ask Davidson whether he had taken his physical ex-
amination, that the latter had replied that he had, but said that he wanted
to work until the time he was scheduled to report for military duty and that
Rebmann had agreed to let him do so Davidson did not testify at the hearing
and presumably was in military service.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Davidson had signed a membership application card in the Union There
was no testimony that he had taken any leading part in union activities at
the plant.
Rehmann testified that Davidson was very irregular in attendance He stated
that Davidson had absented himself without permission on certain specified
dates in November and December and that Davidson had been warned that
Rebmann "wouldn't put up with that for long."
On December 27, Rebmann testified, Davidson told him that he was gomg
to Fort Snelling at the end of the week and was leaving the respondent's em-
ploy. On January 7 or 8, Rehnnann continued, Davidson returned to work and
said that he wanted to continue working until he had to entrain. Davidson
was absent the following Thursday.
On Friday, January 11, Rehmann had a final talk with Davidson which he
summarized as follows :
I reminded him that I had told him earlier we couldn't put up with
such irregular work, and that he had told me he didn't care whether he,
worked or not because he was going into the army ; also that he had told
me that he would be at Fort Snelling for examination, and that he had termi-
nated his employment with the Keith Furnace Company ; I hadn't asked
him to come back to work Monday, and that he had been gone Thursday
without asking permission or giving word, or making any reason, that
we couldn't run a business not knowing whether people would be there or-
whether they wouldn't; and that the management had told me to let
him go
He denied knowing of Davidson's union affiliation or that it played any part
in the decision to terminate his employment
Reasoner testified that Davidson had not been irregular in attendance anrt
that as to those,days when he was absent lie had given Rehmannn prior notice.
However, according to Reasoner's own testimony Davidson had indicated that
his induction was the chief topic of discussion at the time of his discharge.
In view of the fact that Davidson's induction was known to be close at hand,
the lack of any evidence that Davidson carried on any union activity, and the
failure of proof that Rehmann knew of Davidson's union affiliation, the under-
signed credits Rehmann's testimony to the effect that Davidson's personal
plans and work habits as related to and affected by his imminent induction
were the causes of his discharge and finds that the evidence does not estab-
lish that Davidson was discharged because of his union membership or activities.
5. The dischaiyjc of Sylvester Forrester
Sylvester Forrester was fin st employed by the respondent in July 1945 He
was assigned to the foundry department and was under the supervision of
Foreman Joynes At the time of the termination of his employment he was
working as a molder and had been doing that work for three or four months.
He testified that his work had never been criticized except that shortly after
January 5 Joynes had asked him to increase his output of molds Forrester was
laid off on January 11th with the other employees. Later on lie received a
letter from Joynes, dated January 25, directing him not to return to work until
notified He never was recalled
Forrester testified that he had been a member of the C. I. 0 before he was
employed by the respondent. His credited testimony indicates that he was
one of the leaders in the organizing campaign. He telephoned Harry Booth,
president of the Union, and arranged for a meeting at the union meeting hall
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 771
on January 5, 1946 He and others signed membership can (Is at that time. He
also helped to get employees to attend another meeting across the street from
the plant where additional signed membership cards were obtained Joynes
testified that when Turner spoke to him about the extent of union organization
he named some of the men who had joined the Union, including Forrester.
Joynes testified that Forrester was not retained because his work was un-
satisfactory and because lie kept his clothes in an unsanitary condition and
some employees had complained of this and threatened to quit unless there
was a change. He testified that he complained to Forrester about has work
approximately once a week in the month prior to the general lay-off. After he
sent the afore-mentioned letter to Forrester, Joynes continued, Forrester tele-
phoned and when Jo} nes asked him whether he was willing to "change some,"
Forrester replied that lie had no change to make Joynes then told him that
the respondent could not use him.
Joynes testified that lie received complaints about Forrester's sanitary habits
after lie had been employed a month and that the complaints came from men
who washed up with him. He testified that he warned him "perhaps two
times" that he might be discharged. The first time in the fall of 1945. The
second time was about Christmas.
Employee Herman Hansen has been employed by the respondent and its pred-
ecessor over a period of twenty-seven years He testified that Forrester wore his
work clothes for long periods of time, did not keep them in a sanitary condition,
and that their odor was offensive to him and that he suggested to Joynes that
lie tell Forrester to wash his clothes. He did not recall whether he had threat-
ened to quit because of this, but that he might have. He also testified he had
heard others talk of the the condition of Forrester's clothes and locker, but that
lie had not heard-anyone threaten to quit
Clarence Baccus has been employed by the respondent from September 21,
1945. He testified that he complained to Joynes that Forrester's clothes were
not in a sanitary condition. His last complaint of Forrester was a "couple of
weeks" before the lay-off This was his second complaint and lie told Joynes
that lie was going to quit. He testified other employees made similar com-
plaints, but lie could not name them The testimony of Hansen and Baccus is
credited.
The testimony herein established the fact that Joynes was told by Turner
that Forrester was a member of the Union. Also, according to Joynes' own
testimony he had been having trouble with Forrester for several months prior
to the discharge and yet lie did not take action until the Union had asked for
recognition. On the other hand, Forrester admitted that Joynes had asked
him to increase his production and the testimony of two employees indicates
that there had been complaint as to Forrester's sanitary habits. While the
timing of Joynes' action considered with his announced antipathy to the Union
casts some doubt as to his motives, the undersigned credits Joynes' testimony
and finds that Forrester was not discharged because of his union membership or
mictivitnes.
6. The discharge of Robert Doyle
Robert Doyle had been employed in the shipping and grinding departments
for over a year He was laid off with the other employees on January 11. When
he reported for work two weeks later. Joynes told him that he had no more work
for him and gave no other reason for his action . Doyle maintained that his
work had ne-,er been criticised. Doyle, like Forrester, had been an early signer
of a union card Joynes testified that he did not retain Doyle because he did
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not keep his clothes in proper condition and didn ' t have them washed When he
spoke to Doyle of it, he testified , Doyle said his locker was all right . Joynes
claimed he had had the same complaints of Doyle as he had had of Forrester
and that he had given him the same warnings . Joynes testified that he had had
complaints of the sanitary condition of Doyle's locker and clothes from the first
week of his employment and that when he spoke to Doyle of it , Doyle used a
different soap. He continued to get complaints approximately every two weeks
thereafter for a period of about six months . Clarence Baccus, in his credited
testimony , mentioned that he had made the same complaints of Doyle as he had
of Forrester.
When asked on cross -examination whether he had any other reason for dis-
charging Doyle, Joynes said his grinding of castings had been unsatisfactory
and that he shirked taking his share of the difficult grinding work His testimony
on this point was corroborated by Baccus who testified that he complained of
Doyle's work in mid-December. Rebmann also testified that Doyle ' s grinding
work was unsatisfactory and that he complained to Doyle and Joynes about it.
Joynes testified that he had made up his mind "for quite a while" not to retain
Doyle as soon as he obtained a replacement and did so when lie was able to
hire a new man.
The termination of Doyle 's employment is on the same footing as that of
Forrester Doyle's union membership was not brought to Joynes ' attention by
Turner Yet Turner had informed Joynes that most of the men had joined the
Union and the latter could reasonably infer that Doyle was a member . However,
the undersigned credits Joynes ' testimony that he received complaints as to
Doyle's sanitary and work habits and that he warned Doyle The undersigned
finds that the evidence does not establish that Doyle was not recalled to work
because of his union membership or activities.
C The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
It was stipulated and agreed that a unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees, including truck drivers, regular installers, the shipping
clerk, the assistant shipping clerk, but excluding salesmen, engineers, electricians,
plumbers, clerical and supervisory employees, constitutes a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
The undersigned finds that all employees of the respondent in the said unit at
all times material herein constituted and they now constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment and thgt said unit insures to employees
of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to col-
lective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2 Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The pay roll of the respondent for the week ending January 11, 1946, is in evi-
dence. It consists of 51 names. It does not include the names of two super-
visory employees' Robert Joynes, superintendent of the foundry, and A G. Bus-
chusen, supervisor of installations. Both men, the parties agreed, should be ex-
cluded from the unit as supervisory employees Of those on the pay-roll list, there
was agreement that twenty-four employees should be included in the unit as out-
lined They are: Pearl Allen, David Breese, Henry Chambers, Frank Davidson,
Robert Doyle, Robert L Frozh, Sylvester Forrester, Matt Fountain, Nels Gran-
quist, A. Guisinger, Andrew-,l Benae. Fred Hartman, Clyde Hogue, Wm McKeever,
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 773
Frank Matthers, George Mihalovich, Jader Miller, Peter Rakiel, Earl Reasoner,
Paul Schulze, Elmer Scovel, George Turner, Donald Yancy, and Andy Zachar.
There was agreement that the following employees were in the group to be ex-
cluded from the unit : Beulah Buckingham, Harry Campbell, R R. Cook, R P.
England, A. Ferris, Sid Hacker, Fred Kirchner, Al Nesbitt, Leon Phillips, John C.
Rebmann, Parnell Sims, and B Sander. It was also agreed that the employment
of Ivan Whitehurst had terminated prior to the dates relevant herein. There was
disagreement to the status of employees Ales Axser, C. Baccus, I-loyal Cotter,
W. F. Fry, Bruce Fryer, Joe Gordon, Herman Hansen, F. Houseman, David Hart-
man, John H. Howard, Roy Kemp, Herbert Richards, Noel Saunders, and Virgil
Walden.
The cases of those employees concerning whom there is disagreement will now
be considered. The title after the name of each employee is his payroll title.
The findings herein are based upon the testimony of Manager Rebmann except
where otherwise indicated and the duties described are those of the emplol ees
in January 1946.
Alex Axser (General Helper)-General Manager Rehmann described his work
as maintenance work • reinstalling broken windows, moving furniture, etc. Also,
according to Rebmann, he carried a key to the building, could ask other employees
to help him, and has made some recommendations concerning the hire or discharge
of employees. He is an hourly paid employee. Axser described his work as
sweeping and also taking care of a coal stoker. It is clear that he was not a
supervisory employee during the period in question and he will be included in
the unit.
C. Baccus (Foundry Helper)-Baccus helped assemble furnaces for shipment.
He checked castings and other parts of furnaces and then put them together
with or without the help of other employees Approximately nine-tenths of his
time was spent in manual labor He spent the balance of the time instructing
others and correcting their mistakes. He has recommended the hiring of two men,
but it is clear that it is no part of his duties to do so. It is apparent from the
above and the testimony of Baccus himself that he had no supervisory authority.
He will be included in the unit.
Noel Saunders (Foundry FIelper)-His duties were substantially the same as
those of Baccus He will be included in the unit I-loyal Cotter (Installer's
Helper), Joe Gordon (Furnace Installer), David Hartman (Installer), John H.
Howard (G I Trainee), Herbert Richards (Installer) -These men performed
substantially the same duties They were in charge of installing equipment at
job locations away from the plant. Each did manual work assisted by a crew
of three or four They collected the amount due for the job and could hire addi-
tional help when needed at installations outside Des Moines The duties of these
employees are very similar to those of job foremen which category has been held
non-supervisory.' They will be included in the unit.
W. F. Fry (Sheet Metal Man) -Fry was employed in the sheet metal room. He
had been foreman of that section, but had relinquished that position because of
his age As an employee with long experience lie was not as closely supervised as
the other employees in his section and lie on occasion acted as an installer. He
also assisted in a G I instruction program However, only three ex-servicemen
were employed by the respondent during the period here relevant and there is no
proof that any formal instruction program was carried on. The undersigned con-
eludes that while Fry was a trusted employee whose opinion was highly regarded
lie did not have supervisory status. He will be included in the unit.
8 Matter of Schmieg Industries, 62 N L. R B 1474.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bruce Fryer (Foundry Helper)-Fryer's work was to make cores in the foun-
dry. He was assisted by two other employees The testimony indicates that
Fryer was an experienced employee who acted as a job leader, but his duties
fell short of supervisory. While lie had made recommendations concerning the
hiring of employees, it was not a regular part of his duties to do so. He will be
included in the unit.
Herman Hansen (Molder), F. Houseman (Molder)-These employees had
regular production duties They also helped direct the work of apprentice mold-
ers and instructed them in certain tasks. Their work was primarily non-super-
visory and they will be included in the unit.
Roy Kemp (Installer's Helper)-During the period here relevant, Kemp was
employed as a sheet metal worker. He will be included in the unit
Virgil Walden (Installer's Helper, Repair)-Walden's duties were to clean
and repair heating equipment He will be included in the unit
The appropriate unit during the week of January 11, 1946, as afore-described,
consisted of 38 employees. In support of the contention as to the majority status
of the Union, counsel for the Board ottered signed application cards for member-
ship in the Union bearing the names of 25 employees in the appropriate unit
Harry Booth, charter president of the Union and a leader in the organizing drive
of the Union at the plant, testified as to obtaining of signatures to the membership
application cards. He testified that cards were signed at a union hall and at an-
other meeting across the street from the plant He also received signed cards
obtained by employees outside of these two meetings. All these cards remained in
his custody. Booth testified that a majority of the cards were signed in his pres-
ence, but he had no personal knowledge of the handwriting of any of the signers
Manager Rebmann gave testimony impugning the authenticity of the signatures
on some of the cards. He testified that the signature of Andrew Zachar was not
genuine. He also testified that John.H. Howard and Hoyal Z Cotter were out of
town on the dates when they were supposed to have signed their cards.
Former employee Earl Reasoner testified that Zachar had not signed his name
to his card, that he had made his mark on his card and asked someone to sign his
name to it , and that Zachar had made his mark in Reasoner 's presence. Reasoner
further testified that Cotter had signed his card before lie left town and that he
handed his signed card to Reasoner Howard, Reasoner testified, had returned
to the plant on January 8 for some parts and turned in his card to Reasoner at
that time The undersigned credits Reasoner's testimony
Several of the witnesses also verified the fact that they had signed membership
cards and the undersigned concludes that the cards contain genuine signatures and
that in accordance with established practice they may be considered in the de-
termination of the majority status of the Union An examination of the cards
indicates that they were signed between January 5 and 8, 1946. The undersigned
finds that on January 8, 19-16, the Union represented 25 of the 38 employees in the
appropriate unit.
The undersigned finds that on and after January 8, 1946, the Union was the
duly designated representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was at all times
material herein the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
or other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bariatn
Harry Booth at all times here relevant occupied the positions of president of
the Union, president of a local of United Rubber Workers, C. I. 0., and president
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 775
of the Des Moines Industrial Union Council. He was in sole charge of bargaining
negotiations with the respondent and testified as to what occurred.
On January 8. 1946, Booth testified, he made telephone calls to the respondent's
offices in an attempt to reach the manager of the plant. The third time he was
connected with Rehmann Booth testified that he identified himself as speaking
for the Union, that it represented a majority of the employees, and that lie
wanted an appointment for further discussion. Booth was speaking from the
Rubber Workers Office and Rehmann apparently misunderstood the situation since
he declared that he did not think his employees "had any business" to join a
rubber workers union. Rehmann also stated, according to Booth, that he had
to go out of town and could not arrange a conference, that he would be gone ten
days or longer, that he did not know whether he wanted a 0. I 0 Union in the
plant, and that he wanted the opportunity to call the A F. of L. Rehmann. at
Booth's request, gave him the name of the respondent's attorney.
Booth then telephoned the respondent's attorney, explained his inability to
arrange for a conference, and asked him to explain to Rebmann his obligations
under the Act. The attorney promised to do so. Thereafter, Booth testified, he
received a telephone call from Rebmann. Rehmann stated that he would talk
to Booth, maintained he could not do so until after his return, and no definite
appointment was made. The next day the Union mailed to the Regional Director
a petition for an election This petition was subsequently withdrawn and the
original charge herein was filed. No negotiations have taken place between the
respondent and the Union since January S.
Rebmann testified that he had explained to Booth that he was unable to see him
before his return from a scheduled trip and that he would be available then.
He denied that lie had expressed any opposition to the C. I. O. and had said that
he wanted to investigate the matter of A. F. of L. representation. He testified
that he had mentioned the A F. of L., and had told Booth that some of the
employees had at one time "worked" for the A. F. of L., that they might he inter-
ested in it, and that lie was under the impression that iron workers in Des Moines
were represented by the A. F. of L.
The undersigned was impressed by Booth's testimony as an attempt to accu-
rately describe the telephone conversations. The undersigned was not impressed
with Rehmann's testimony, credits Booth's testimony, and finds that Booth's
request for recognition was received with hostility. However, the respondent
contends that there was no violation of the Act since Rebmann did not refuse to
meet with Booth and, in fact, said he would be available after his return from
his trip
A fundamental requirement of the Act with respect to negotiations between
an employer and a collective bargaining representative is that the employer act
in good faith. Outward expression of a willingness to meet and consider the
claim of a collective bargaining representative may be belied by other statements
and conduct Counsel for the Board contends that the latter situation exists
here, especially in ^iew of the unfair labor practices committed by the respondent.
The sequence of events pertinent to the resolution of this question and their
totality lead to the conclusion that this contention has been established.
On January 8, Rebmann and Booth had the afore-mentioned telephone con-
versations. While Rehmann deferred meeting Booth until some undetermined
time in the future, he received Booth's request with hostility and said that he
wished to consider whether he wanted to have a C I. O. union in the plant and,
in that connection, to weigh the merits of A. F. of L. affiliation. The choice
of a bargaining representative was a matter for the employees to decide for
themselves Rehmann had no right to pass judgment on thewisdom of their
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
choice or to seek to influence them in any way. His attitude corresponds
exactly with the position Joynes took in his talk to the employees on that same
day or the next day as well as in talks Joynes had with individual employees,
Joynes told the men that they had made a mistake in joining the C I. 0 and that
the A. F. of L. was a better union. He further stated that Rebmann had the
same opinion as to the merits of the two organizations. He also made it quite
clear to the employees that if they joined the C. I. O. they would receive less
wages and have less advantageous working conditions.
On January 11, Rebmann discriminatorily discharged Earl Reasoner. Such
conduct goes to the very heart of the Act since it clearly indicates that union
activities would be met with reprisals.
In June 1946, Rehmann, whether or not he instigated the move to repudiate
the Union, gave it definite aid and assistance He drafted the affidavit form,
his office was used by the signers, his secretary filled in the blanks for the em-
ployees and witnessed and notarized the signatures Finally, these affidavits
were kept by the respondent and thus it had the benefit of an open poll of em-
ployee sentiment. This was a clear interference with the rights of the employees
under the Act. It reflects on the motives of Rehmann, the respondent's chief
operating official, from the very start of the efforts of the Union to secure recog-
nition. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds that the respondent,
while not openly refusing to meet with the Union, on learning of its claim of
majority status, took prompt action to defeat it which culminated in a repudiation
of the Union by employees in June under its guidance. The undersigned concludes
and finds that the conduct of the respondent from the start of attempted nego-
tiations evinced a fixed determination to evade its responsibilities under the
Act and that on or about January 8, 1946, and at all times thereafter, the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, thereby interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1V. THE FFFECT 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 such of them as have been found to be unfair labor
practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commeice
and the free flow of commerce
V TIIE REMEDY
Having found that the i espondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The findings herein establish that when the Union attempted to carry on
organization activities among the employees and obtain recognition, the respond-
ent countered these efforts by activities designed to defeat the Union. These
activities included the speech of Foreman Joynes in which the employees were
threatened with economic reprisal if the Union was successful, the discriminatory
discharge of Earl Reasoner by General Manager Lehmann, and his later activities
in securing wholesale defections from the Union. These activities clearly
evinced the respondent's fixed purpose not to recognize the Union. That totality
of the respondent's conduct is indicative of "persistent efforts by varying methods
to interfere with the right of self-organization" in circumstances which contain
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 777
"the threat of continuing and varying efforts to attain the same end in the
future."' Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying
purpose, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices 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 conduct in
the past The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the recom-
mended order is coextensive with the tin eat In order, therefore to snake effective
the interdependent guarantees 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, it will be recommended
that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Earl E Reasoner It will therefore be recommended
that the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other
-rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that the respondent make
him whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against him by payments to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount he would have earned as wages from the date of the
discrimination to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings 10 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS or LAw
1. United Production and Service Employees, Local Industrial Union No. 1465,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eail E
Reasoner, thereby discouraging membership in United Production and Service
Employees, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C I. 0, respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (3)
of the Act.
4 All production and maintenance employees of the respondent, including
truck drivers, regular installers, shipping clerk, assistant shipping clerk, but
excluding salesmen, engineers, electricians, plumbers, clerical and supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
9 N L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S 426, 438.
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expense, such as for transportation, room,
and boas d, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, S N L R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal , State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R. B , 311 U. S. 7.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. United Production and Service Employees , Local Industrial Union No. 1465,
C. I. 0., was on January 8. 1946, and at all relevant times thereafter has been
the exclusive representative of the respondent ' s employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about January 8 , 1946, and at all times thereafter , to recog-
nize and bargain collectively with United Production and Service Employees,
Local Industrial Union No. 1465 , C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 5) of the
Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
8. The respondent , by discharging Frank E Davidson , Pearl Allen , Robert
Doyle, and Sylvester Forrester , has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Keith Furnace Company, Des
Moines, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with United Production and
Service, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Discouraging membership in United Production and Service Employees,
Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its
employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Production and Service Employees, Local Indus-
trial Union No. 1465, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Earl E Reasoner immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges :
(b) Make whole Earl E. Reasoner for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from
the date of the discrimination to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment less his net earnings" during said period.
(c) Upon request bargain collectively with United Production and Service
Employees, Local Industrial Union No. 1465, C. 1. 0., as the exclusive represen-
tative of all production and maintenance employees of the respondent, including
11 See footnote 10, supra.
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY 779
truck drivers, regular installers, shipping clerk and assistant shipping clerk, but
excluding salesmen, engineers, electricians, plumbers, clerical and supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
(d) Post immediately at its plant at Des Moines, Iowa, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
for sixt;, (dO) consecutive days thereafter Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered
by any other material:
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the
respondent discriminatorily terminated the employment of Frank E. Davidson,
Pearl Allen, Robert Doyle, and Sylvester Forrester, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II, of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall
file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section
33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board,
request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days
from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Any party desiring
to submit a brief in support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen
(15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the
Board, by filing with the Board an original and four copies thereof, and by imme-
diately serving a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional
Director.
SIDNEY L. FELLER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated August 19, 1946.
"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:
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist UNITED PRODUCTION AND SERVICE,
LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 1465, C. I. 0., or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through iepresentatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement 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.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees including truck drivers, regular
installers, shipping clerk, assistant shipping clerk, but excluding salesmen,
engineers, electricians, plumbers, clerical and supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
Employees to be reinstated
Earl E. Reasoner
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
KEITH FURNACE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated-------------------------------- By---------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.