Burnside Steel Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 128 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of BURNSIDE STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO
Case No. 13-C--,' &94--Decided June 2'7, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 29, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent
had not engaged in unfair labor practices by the lay-off of Joe Halla-
mon from April 26 to May 4, 1945, when Hallamon reported back
for work, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
respect thereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief were filed by the respondent.
The Board 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 of the respondent, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
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, Burnside Steel Foundry
Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Laying off or otherwise discriminating against any of its em-
ployees and thereby discouraging membership in International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization, because such
69 N. L. R. B., No. 12.
128
BU RNSIDE STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 129
employees shall have in the past filed charges, or may in the future
file charges with the Board against the respondent;
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, by
threatening such employees with reprisals of any character if they
should form, join, or assist the International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A." t
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respond-
ent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated
again Joe Hallamon, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
by its lay-off of said Joe Hallamon from on or about April 26, 1945,
to on or about May 4, 1945.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Gustaf Ii h'i iekson, Esq., of Chicago, Il] , for the Board
Irrinq Jleyers, Esq., of Meyers and Meyers, 18S West Randolph St., Chicago,
111, for the Union
Albert J. Smith, Esq., of Filffe and Cleric, 120 South La Salle St., Chicago, Ill.,
for the respondent
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On a second amended charge filed October 26, 1945, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, the National Labor Relations Boaid,
I Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER," and substi-
tuting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER."
70159 2-47-v of 6:1-10
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called the Board, on October 26, 1945, by the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint against Burnside
Steel Foundry Company of Chicago, Illinois, herein called Respondent, alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3) and (4) 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 copies of the second amended charge and a notice of
hearing were duly served upon the Union and Respondent.
Concerning unfair labor practices the complaint alleges that Respondent, at
its plant in Chicago, Illinois, dcscrnninatorily laid off one Joe Hallamon from
on or about April 26, 1945 to on or about May 4. 1945, for the reason that he
joined and assisted the Union ; and that from on or about May 4, 1945 to on or
about May 22, 1945, Respondent laid off the same person because he had filed
charges under the Act and because he assisted the Union; and that by such
conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1), (3) and (4) of the Act; that from on or about December 1, 1943
to the date of the issuance of the complaint the Respondent threatened, warned
and urged its employees not to become members of the Union and by such con-
duct interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
The answer of Respondent duly filed herein admits the allegations of the
complaint pertaining to its corporate structure, the nature and character of its
business, and the lay-offs of Hallamon, but otherwise denies all the allegations
of the complaint pertaining to the commission of any unfair labor practices
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing on the complaint was held in Chicago,
Illinois, on April 4 and 5, 1946, before the undersigned, R. N. Denham, a Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Union
and Respondent were represented by counsel. All parties participated in the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and present evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the close of the presentation of all evidence the motion of counsel for the
Board to conform the complaint to the proof with respect to the correction of
names, dates, and other matters not going to the material allegations of the
complaint, was granted without objection and was made applicable to all plead-
ings herein. Counsel for the Respondent made separate motions to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and to dismiss that portion thereof which alleges a
violation of Section 8 (4) of the Act. These motions were taken under advise-
ment by the undersigned and are hereby denied Argument by counsel for
the Board and for Respondent was made on the record. A brief for Respondent
has been received from its counsel.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record, after having heard
and observed the witnesses and considered all the evidence offered and re-
ceived, the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Illinois corporation with its principal office and place of
business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the production of steel castings.
In the operation of its plant, Respondent, during the last fiscal year purchased
raw materials consisting of steel scrap, ferro-alloys, sand and binders valued at
more than $100,000.00, of which more than 30% were transported in commerce
BURNSIDE STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 131
through the States of the United States to its plant in Chicago, and during the
same period, produced finished products consisting chiefly of steel castings
valued at more than $150,000.00 of which more than 50% were sold and trans-
ported in commerce from its plant in the State of Illinois through other States
of the United States to their various points of destination . Respondent concedes
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
If. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America. PAW-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership the employees of Respondent at its plant in Chicago, Illinois
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PR'CTICES
A. The Rule _Igatn.+ t Solicitation otr Company Time
In the latter part of April 1943, the Union participated in an election at Re-
spondent's plant in which it was the only contender It iuas successful by a
vote of approximately 217 to 203 and, on May 10, 1943 was certified by the
Board as the exclusive bargaining reptesentative of certain of the employees
ui Respondent's plant At about that time. 11 F Wardwell, president of Re-
spondent. called into his office a number of the men who had been the leaders
in the union organizational campaign and who also represented the majority of
the officers of the local. and told then that since the organizational campaign
was now over and the Union had won the election, he expected them to "get down
to work," called then- attention to the fact that the company had a rule pro-
hibiting the solicitation of union memberships on company time which, he advised
there would now be enforced, and instructed them, as the leaders who knew the
union members, to 'tell everybody " Wardhh ell testified that in 1939 or 1940
the company had instituted a rule prohibiting solicitation of union membership
or union activity on company tune and property, and that the rule had been
ri diced to writing, signed by him, and posted on the bulletin board where it
remained for at least a month to his certain knowledge. He further testified
that in late 1942 of early 1943, he dictated, signed and had posted another notice
of the same nature, which, to his knowledge, remained posted for at least 6
it eeks daring the organizational campaign of the Union Respondent, however,
was unable to produce any copies of either of these notices, and the testimony
of a number of witnesses who had been employed (luring the time when they
wcie supposed to have been posted, was to the effect that at no time had they
ever seen such a notice on any of the bulletin boards It is not essential to a
determination of this controversy to resolve this conflict but under all the
circumstances it is found that Respondent has made no substantial and reliable
showing that such notice ever was posted for the information of all its employees.
notwithstanding that the supervisory employees were advised from time to time
that solicitation of union memberships on conipany property would not be
permitted.
In January 1943, Joe Hallamon was employed by Respondent as a sand
grinder About June 1943 he became a member of the Union and in December
1943 was appointed steward, which office he continued to hold through the entire
period that is pertinent herein' At the time Hallamon joined the Union, one
King L Mock was the recording secretary of the local and was one of the group
i In Jtils 1945, Haiiamon participated m a strike and did not return to work at its ternu-
nation.
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called into Wardwell's office following the certification and warned about solici-
tation on company time To what extent the rule was circulated by the union
members who had composed the group that met with Wardwell is not revealed,
but it is conceded by Mock and Hallamon that shortly after Hallamon became
a member of the Union, and at about the time Mock was discharged,' Mock told
Hallamon that he would be discharged if he solicited union membership on
company time Hallamon testified that he was aware, at all tines, that solicita-
tion on company time would not be permitted.
During the period from the time when Wardwell stated that the first notice
was posted about 6 years ago up to April 1945, there had been no instances where
,any employee had been reprimanded, warned or disciplined by any of the super-
visory employees or the officers of Respondent because of violation of the rule
above referred to. It was conceded that Respondent placed practically no limi-
tations on the conduct of its employees in the foundry with reference to "idle"
conversation during working hours, beyond the generally accepted rule that
such conversations should not be allowed to interfere with production. In this
manner it was a common practice for the employees to discuss baseball games,
politics, religion, the activities of their team in the bowling league and such
other matters as might be of interest to them, including, according to Wardwell's
testimony, general "idle talk" about the Union, without being subject to repri-
mand or other discipline Thus, according to Wardwell, there would be no
objection to the men discussing the merits of the Union or its functions or what
it stood for. Such conversations would not get into the proscribed area of dis-
cussion until they became direct solicitation for membership in the Union.
B Halhimon's lag-off of April 26, 19¢5
During the 2 years following the certification in May 1943, for reasons not dis-
closed in the record, although there were some negotiations in the very early
days immediately following the certification, there appear to have been few if
any negotiations between the Union and Respondent and no contractual rela-
tions whatsoever. Hallamon was an active and enthusiastic proponent of the
Union at all tunes and overlooked no opportunity to interest the other employees
in it. It was his testimony that he confined all his conversations with reference
to the Union to the period before and after his work and during his lunch period.
However, the testimony of the other witnesses is of such a character that Hal-
lamon 's statement that he confined his solicitation to his free time and on no
occasion approached any employee to become a member of the Union during work-
ing hours cannot be credited. The testimony of three credible witnesses is to the
contrary.
Fred W. Klopla, an inspector in the cleaning room and in no respect a super-
visor, who had been employed by Respondent for about 10 years, testified that
on one day in April 1945 which the witness was unable to fix definitely, as he went
by Hallamon's machine the latter stopped his work, approached him and solicited
him to join the Union, stating at the same time that the CIO expected to sign a
contract with Respondent in a few days and that if he did not sign up with the
Union at that time lie would have to pay back dues later on. Klopla expressed
no interest and walked away from Hallamon and some time later in the day
reported the incident to Walter Valentine, his foreman. Valentine advised
Klopla that he would report the incident to Walter Moore, the superintendent
Hallamon denied having had this conversation with Klopla or having had any
Fnz reasons not pertinent herein.
BURNSIDE STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 133
conversation soliciting union membership from him during working hours. His
denial is not credited.
Virgil Berry is employed by Respondent as a maintenance man charged with
responsibility, among other things, for keeping the various machines and equip-
ment greased. This ordinarily is done while the operators are on their lunch
period and the machines are not in operation He stated that on or about the
18th of April 1945, while he was greasing one of the screw cutters about 25 or
30 feet from Hallanion's place of work, Hallamon carne to him and asked him
when lie was going to join the Union When Berry replied that he was not ready
to loin, Hallamon asked him what was the matter with his department; that
it was the only depaituient not het signed up. There was some considerable
further conversation between Hallamon and Berry in which Hallamon stated
that he had heard that Berry's foreman, one Ernest Willings, foreman of the
maintenance crew, had threatened to discharge any of the members of his crew
who joined the Union. Berry defended Willings and stated lie did not think
that Willings would make such a statement. Later he reported the entire in-
cident to Willings. At that time, Berry did not know Hallamon's name and did
not identify him to Willings but in repeating the conversation, elicited the in-
formation from Willings that be had made such statements but that he was just
"kidding around" when he was making them. Berry further testified that he
was never warned by any officer or supervisor not to talk about the Union and that
in fact he knows of no rule against talking on the job, since, during working
hours, they frequently talk about baseball and other things and nothing is said
about it He further testified that he had received no instructions from Willings
or ion one else to report conversations about the Union and that he went to
Willings with the report about the Hallamon conversation entirely on his own
initiative Hallamon confirmed that such a conversation had taken place but
denied it was in working hours. It might be drawn from the evidence that, at
the time, Hallamon was at lunch while Berry was working, but Hallamon's
statement that neither he nor Berry was working is not credited.
Darrel Jones, also a member of the maintenance crew, testified that on or
about April 24, 1945. while he was at his work hauling sand out of the foundry,
Hallanion who was going from the washroom in the general direction of his
machine, stopped him and asked him to join the Union, at the same time telling
him that if he did not join at that time, later on it would cost him $35. This con-
versation extended itself until Jones stated that one of the reasons for not joining
the Union was that he might be fired by his foreman Hallamon replied that
lie had heard remarks like that before but that there was no occasion to be
afraid of Willings since the Union had him "tamed." Hallamon denied that
this took place during working hours. His denial is not credited.
This approach to Jones by Hallamon was the third time Hallamon had urged
Jones to join the Union. On the last preceding occasion Jones, who had no
inclination to join the Union, reported it to Willings but refused to point out the
man who had accosted him. On the last occasion, however, still not knowing
Hallamon's name. Jones pointed out Hallamon at Willings' request and also
evidenced his displeasure at having been approached by Hallamon by the state-
ment that he was getting tired of being urged to join the Union and felt like
"punching him in the nose" Following this conversation with Jones, Willings