C. D. Beck & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 1426 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of HAL PETERSON, CHARLES PETERSON, TAYLOR CUM-
MINS, J. C. CUMMINS) KATHRYN M. BECK, AND C. D. BECK, DOING
BUSINESS AS C. D. BECK & COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 8-C-1700.-Decided October 4, 19.15
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 19, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief were filed by the respondents. On
August 23, 1945, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C.
The respondents and the Union participated in the argument. The
Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the healing
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondents'
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the modifications and additions hereinafter set
forth.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have violated Section 8 (1)
and 8 (3) of the Act, we must order the respondents, pursuant to the
mandate of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. We also
predicate our cease and desist order upon the following findings:
The respondents' whole course of conduct discloses a purpose to defeat
self-organization and its objects among their employees. As we have
found above, the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees by various acts and statements. The cul-
63 N. L. R. B., No. 218.
1426
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1427
minatlon of their illegal activities, the discrimination against Eiler
and Hughes, "goes to the very heart of the Act."' Because of the
respondents' unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced that the unfair labor practices found are presuasively related
to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that the danger of
their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respond-
ents' conduct in the past.'- The preventive purpose of the Act will be
thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order,
therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section
7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and
thus effectuate the purposes of the Act, we shall order the respondents
to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As recommended in the Inter-
mediate Report, we shall also order the respondents to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.3
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 respondents, Hal Peterson, Charles
Peterson, Taylor Cummins, J. C. Cummings, Kathryn Al. Beck, and
i N L R B v Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F (2d) 532, 536 (C C A 4)
See also N L R B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Company , 116 F ( 2d) 350,
353 (C C A 7), where the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed : "No
more effective form of intimidation nor one more violative of the N. L R. Act can be
conceived than discharge of an employee because he joined a union. . . .
See N L R B v Express Publishing Company,'312 U S 426
In their brief before the Board , the respondents contend in substance that Hughes
should not be awarded back pay because he made no reasonable effort to obtain desirable
new employment subsequent to his discharge and thereby wilfully incurred a loss of
earnings On August 14, 1944. the date of his discharge, Hughes received from the respond-
ents a release to the United States Employment Service. He testified that he thereafter
applied for employment at an office of the United States Employment Service. However,
on a copy of his release, which was introduced into evidence , there appears under the
portion entitled "For WDIC Use Only" the following comment • "When ready to return to
work will come in " The record does not reveal the circumstances under which this entry
was made, nor is there any other evidence from which we can determine whether or not
Hughes in fact registered for employment at the office of the United States Employment
Service subsequent to his discharge on August 14 Under cross -examination , Hughes testi-
fied that at the time of the hearing he was employed "working cement work ," that he had
performed such work for various employers since his discharge , but that he had been unem-
ployed "about half the time" between the date of his discharge and December 27, 1944, the
date of his testimony . No other evidence was adduced concerning Hughes ' employment or
efforts to obtain employment subsequent to his discharge.
On this state of the record, we are unable to decide whether, in accordance with the
principles set forth in ]fatter of The Ohio Public Service Company , 52 N L R. B 725,
Hughes has wilfully incurred a loss of earnings we will not, however , require additional
evidence at this time, inasmuch as the parties may be able amicably to adjust the amount
of back pay due Hughes upon the basis of facts disclosed when compliance with our Order
is undertaken This is without prejudice to the respondents' right, in the event that this
matter is not adjusted , to apply for leave to adduce additional evidence as to whether
Hughes has wilfully incurred a loss of earnings subsequent to his illegal discharge.
662514-46-vol 63 91
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. D. Beck, doing business as C. D. Beck & Company, Sidney, Ohio,
and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of their employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to the hire or tenure
of their employment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to William Clifford Eiler and John Taylor Hughes
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole William Clifford Eiler and John Taylor Hughes
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ents' discrimination against them, by payment to Hughes of his vaca-
tion pay withheld in July 1944, and by payment to Eiler and Hughes,
respectively, of a sum of money equal to the amount which each nor-
mally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said period ;
(c) Post at their plant at Sidney, Ohio, copies of the-notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondents' representative, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondents have taken to comply therewith.
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1429
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the, policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent 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.
William Clifford Eiler John Taylor Hughes
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.
HAL PETERSON, CHARLES PETERSON, TAYLOR CUMMINS, J. C.
CUMMINS, KATHRYN M. BECK, AND C. D. BECK, DOING
BUSINESS AS C. D. BECK & COMPANY,
By --------------------------- -----------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Louis S. Belkin, for the Board.
Mr. Philip J. Schneider, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Respondents.
Mr. Harold A. Tull, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 5, 1944, against Hal Peterson, Charlie Peterson, Taylor Cununins, J C.
Cummins, Kathryn M. Beck, and C D Beck, doing business as C D Beck & Com-
pany, herein called Respondents. The complaint alleges that the Respondents
had engaged in, and were engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein
called the Act; and that it was issued on charges made by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon
the Respondents and the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance alleges
that the Respondents: (1) discouraged membership in the Union by discharging
William Clifford Eiler and John Taylor Hughes on August 14, 1944; (2) inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, beginning in June 1944 until the date of the
complaint, (a) by the aforesaid discouragement of Union membership, (b) and
by warning and dissuading their employees from membership and activity in
the Union, (c) by threatening demotion and discharge to those who supported the
Union, (d) by disparaging the Union and making derogatory remarks concerning
its officers and members, and, (e) by engaging in a course of conduct that ob-
structed the exercise of the employees rights to select a collective bargaining
representative.
The Respondents filed an answer to the complaint on December 23, 1944,
denying generally the commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Sidney, Ohio, on December 27, 28 and
29, 1944, before Melton Boyd, the undersigned Trial Examiner designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondents were represented by
counsel, and the Union by its representative All parties participated in the
hearing, and each was afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to be heard on the matters in issue At the
opening of the hearing the Respondents renewed their motion filed with and
denied by the Regional Director for a bill of particulars; but following a state-
ment in the record made by the Board's trial counsel specifying certain matters,
the Respondents withdrew their motion for a bill of particulars At the conclusion
of the hearing, the Board's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof
with respect to formal matters, and without objection this motion was granted.
The parties presented oral argument, and subsequently the Respondents filed a
brief with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observations of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OP THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents are partners engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor
buses, and have their office and plant in Sidney, Ohio. In the operation of this
plant Respondents use as raw materials sheet steel, bar steel, motors, axles,
transmissions , wheels and similar parts and pieces integrated in bus body con-
struction and motor bus assembly, the cost of which annually approximates
$700,000.00, of which more than fifty percent is received through shipments from
outside of Ohio. The Respondents' annual sales of completed motor buses approxi-
mates $1 ,500,000 00, more than ninety percent of which are shipped out of Ohio'
1 The facts relating to Respondents' operations were embodied in a stipulation received
in evidence, and in admissions in Respondents' answer
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1431
The Respondents concede they are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, C I. 0, is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act, and admits to membership employees of the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Inception of the Union
In the latter part of June 1944,2 some of Respondents' employees applied for
membership in the Union; the Union instituted a membership campaign, dis-
tributing handbills and conducting meetings." Among employees fictive at the
outset were Clifford Eller, John Hughes, Wilbur Staley and Clarence Hendricks.4
On June 27, the international representative of the Union, Harold A. Tull,
directed a letter to the Respondents and stated a majority of the employees
had designated the Union as their collective bargaining representative, re-
quested Respondents to recognize and enter into a bargaining conference with
the Union, advised them to deal with no other labor organization, advised
them that the Union would petition the Board for certification if recognition
were denied, and requested them to reply immediately Respondents' manag-
ing partner, C. D Beck, upon receipt of the letter, endeavored to reach Tull by
telephone, and telegram. In a telegram dated June 29 Beck proposed a con-
ference for June 30 which Tull could not attend ; Tull, by letter dated June
29, proposed a conference for July 7, which Beck could not attend. Their
first conference, later described, was held on August 3 after a considerable
exchange of correspondence.
After Beck received Tull's letter of June 27, he called separately to his
office employees Ray Johnson and Dlelford Kuck, whom Beek, according to his
testimony, "practically knew ... were interested" in the Union. He had been so
informed by his brother, Roland Beck, the plant superintendent. In talking
with Johnson, after asking where he could reach Tull,' Beck stated that in his
opinion the Union could do no more for the employees than he was doing, that
the employees would not be helped in joining it, and that he preferred an
A. F. of L. union to one affiliated with the C I. 0, since the latter had "com-
munistic" tendencies."
B. 1944 paid vacations
Shortly thereafter, Beck called to his office John Hughes and Clarence Hend-
ricks, saying, "I understand you two are committeemen." They admitted this.
According to Beck, lie gave them no further opportunity to speak, but told
them not to engage in any Union activity in the plant.' He told them the
2 All dates given are in 1944 , unless otherwise specified.
3 Apparently the first meeting was held in the last week of June, and weekly meetings
w ere held thereafter, except during the middle of July.
4Eiler and Hughes, whose discharge on August 14 is hereinafter discussed , applied for
membership on June 20 and June 27 respectively.
° Tull had given as his address a hotel in the nearby city of Troy, Ohio
° Beck testified he did not remember having made these specific statements to Johnson,
but did ask him "what he thought of the Union." The Trial Examiner credits Johnson's
definite testimony . Kuck testified that Beck inquired of him only wheie lie could reach
Tull.
7 Hughes testified that he complied with this instruction of Beck , which lie had received
also from Tull. Respondents offered no evidence that Hughes subsequently engaged in
union activity during working hours, and as hereinafter noted, lie was hesitant in dis-
cussing union matters in the plant even when his foreman made inquiry.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Government held him responsible if anything in the plant was damaged, and
said if sabotage occurred they would be he'd personally liable for any loss
and they would be invested by the F. B. I' Explaining this conversation, Beck
testified he warned these particular men because they were the "representa-
tives" of the Union in the plant.
During the same or the following week, Respondents' employees received their
customary annual paid vacation by which they worked 30 hours and subse-
quently received pay for 40 additional hours.' Beck withheld the "vacation
pa} " from Hughes and Hendricks, paying them only straight time for the 30
hours actually worked When Hughes inquired why this was done, Plant Super-
intendent R. I. Beck, told him that he was retarding work in the shop. This was
the first instance when Hughes was accused of failing to attend to his work. He
never received this "vacation pay." Hendricks received his vacation pay after
he resigned as Union committeeman, and, according to C. D Beck, gave assurance
he would not cause any sabotage."
C. Discouragement of union activity
Near the middle of July, without any previous instance of it having been done,
Beck called to his office a number of employees selected by him as "key, men"
in the plant. Before conferring with all of them, he talked first with employee
Reno King, who Beck understood had replaced Hendricks as committeeman. Beck
asked King if he "was on the committee" and "how many men had signed cards."
King replied that he was not on the committee and that he did not know how many
employees has signed Union cards. Beck then stated to King that, if the Union
had enough signatures, he was willing for the employees to have an election
to "vote it in." Following this brief conversation (he summoned the other men
whom he characterized as "representative" of their respective departments, in-
cluding some Union members and including Hendricks, but not including Eller
or Hughes." Beck testified he called them together "to ascertain whether the
Union was going in " He inquired how many employees had signed cards with
the Union and if a majority of the employees wanted it. He referred to Tull's
letter, which he had posted on the bulletin board along with a copy of his telegram
in response, and remarked it was all right with him if the employees wanted an
election. He then told the "key men" that he had a Form 10 application for a
general wage increase pending with the War Labor Board,12 and assured them he
was endeavoring to secure authorization to grant them a wage increase. In the
course of this conference, Beck told these employees he believed he could do
more for them than the Union could do.
Later in July, Hughes' foreman, Roy Van Horn, volunteered to Hughes the
remark that he did not believe in unions, and that a union could not do as much
good for the employees as was being done for them by C. D. Beck. Hughes made
no response, in view of the instructions he had received from both Beck and Tull
against Union activity in the plant. About the same time, George Mclnturf,
'Beek testified that during the latter part of June water had been released on two
occasions from a boiler, that the boiler was not then in use, that no damage was done, that
it was reported to him by the plant engineer , that lie did not investigate the situation,
that he had no intimation of who released the water, that he did not suspect either Hughes
or Hendricks . Hughes testified he heard of these incidents for the first time at the hearing.
9 30 of the 40 additional hours w ere paid for on the overtime rate of time and one-half,
which , when added to the time worked , in effect equalled 85 hours in that week as straight
pay.
30 Hendricks was not called as a witness.
ii Beck offered no explanation of this, except to say he did not consider Hughes a
representative employee
12 This Form 10 application had been filed in February, 1944.
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1433
foreman over Eller. engaged him in a conversation about the Union, and asked
Eiler what he thought about it and if he desired to get back his Union initiation
fee. Eiler said he did not want to get it back, and indicated his belief that the
Union was a benefit to the employees
Beck disclosed at the hearing that the Respondents as a practice questioned
prospective employees "whether they belonged to a union . . . simply to know
why they were coming to us, more than anything else" He did not indicate
when this practice started, but testified it was,being followed throughout the
summer months of 1944.
D. August 3 conference and mseting
As indicated above, Union Representative Tull and C. D. Beck met for the
first time in conference by appointment in the afternoon of August 3. Tull was
seeking recognition for the Union as bargaining agent, either immediately
through negotiations with the Respondents or after Board investigation and
certification following an election. Early in the conference Beek remarked the
"C. I. O. is . . . a" damned political racket". In discussing the possibility of
improving wage rates in the plant, Beek stated he had filed a Form 10 applica-
tion with War Labor Board and that it bad been denied'a MIe told Tull the
War Labor Board office had suggested a wage incentive plan instead, but ad-
mitted that he had been told there that such plan was contrary to the C. I. O.
policy. Tull confirmed, that the Union was opposed to such incentive plan in
lieu of a wage increase, since in practice it was nothing more than additional
pay for additional work. Tull informed Beck that he had called a Union
meeting for that evening, after which he would leave for Cleveland to file a
representation petition with the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations
Board. Tull discussed with Beck certain advantages to Respondents that would
grow out of union recognition and bargaining particularly the practices that
discouraged absenteeism and encouraged more enthusiastic cooperation of em-
ployees in their work. Beck asked Tull to describe these practices in a speech to
the employees that afternoon in the plant which Tull refused to do. Alluding to
this conference with Tull, in his testimony Beek stated, "Well, after talking
with him and getting an idea of his setup and outlook and everything, I didn't
think that he was the type of fellow that could really do my men any good
from a representative standpoint".
After the conference and about 15 minutes before quitting time, Beck called
all his employees into a meeting at the time-clock, where he addressed them
for about 30 minutes." He talked about slackened production in the plant, but
made no specific comment on what caused it; lie referred to the contents of a
telegram posted on the time-clock, recently received from the head of the civilian
branch of the Cleveland Ordnance District of the War Department, in which
employees were urged to work to their utmost." He announced the rejection
by the War Labor Board of the Form 10 application, and proposed to the em-
ployees the adoption of the incentive pay plan He spoke of having had a
conference with Tull, referred to the Union meeting to he held that evening,
and suggested that all the employees attend the meeting In the course of his
13 The War Labor Board had rejected this application in the latter part of July.
"Beck testified, and Tull denied, that Tull consented to the call of this meeting. The
Trial Examiner believes and finds that Tull did not consent to this meeting, considering
he previously had announced the Union meeting to be held that evening
11 The telegram stated that the Respondents' "schedules are falling behind", a fact cor-
roborated by other evidence. Beck's testimony indicated that this telegram was sent when
the Ordnance District recognized that the Respondents had a labor shortage in a restricted
labor area.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
speech, he stated that he was "against unions," that ,the "C. I O. is a racket",
that by joining it employees were "sticking [ their ] necks out ," and that they
should return from the meeting that night with "changed minds ."" About
one-third of the employees attended the Union meeting that evening.
On the following day, August 4, Beck called to his office again the "key men"
with whom he had conferred early in July and explained to them his proposed
incentive pay plan. He then posted a bulletin descriptive of the plan and
requested the employees who favored the plan to notify their foremen on the
next morning . On August 5, instead of awaiting the volunteered expression of
his employees , he directed his foremen to poll the employees to ascertain their
attitude toward the plan. The poll disclosed the employees disapproved of it
by a vote of 2 to 1."
E. Discharge of Eller and Hughes
A principal part of Respondents ' operations was in the construction of metal
bus bodies In the course of this work welders were employed in what was
called "jig assembly", where structural pieces made in the plant were -assembled
on a jig and welded into frame sections . Frame sections were then erected on
a sub -structure called a "buck", in what was called "buck assembly", where these
sections and covering metal panels were welded into an integral bus body.
Employees who erected the frame sections and the metal panels were called
"buck assembly men", and were assigned to specific operations which followed
the sequence of side, top , back, and front assemblies . Respondents ' plant was
arranged to operate four buck assemblies , and the assembly men proceeded from
one buck to the next along the assembly line as they completed their respective
operations . As the assembly of a body progressed , welders joined the frame
section, panels , and other integral pieces.
Clifford Eller , John Hughes and Wilbur Staley were buck assembly men,
respectively working on side, back and front assemblies.
As indicated above, Eller and Hughes were among the first to join the -Union,
and Hughes was one of its committeemen . Through close association in their
work for Respondents , and long service with the Respondents ' predecessors in
the plant , Eller and Hughes were known to be close friends and to have a mutual
interest in supporting the Union . Eller was employed by a predecessor body
company in this plant in 1934, and continued working there under successive
managements without any substantial interruption after a lay-off in 1935 or
1936. Hughes likewise was employed by a predecessor company in 1936, and
worked continuously thereafter . He served at times as an instructor of other
employees , including Eller. Staley was employed by the Respondents early in
1944.'
"Beck admitted having said in his opinion "unions were a racket", although he denied
or did not recall having used these precise phrases to which the employees testified in
mutual corroboration Beck explained the admitted remark, as the expression of his
"personal " views , and so stated to the employees Since he was then addressing them as
their employer and was in fact the managing partner, this reference to his personal views
served to emphasize their significance . The Trial Examiner finds he made the statements
quoted above
17 In the latter part of August , Respondents filed with the war Labor Board another
Form 10 application.
'$The complaint contains no allegation concerning discrimination against Staley iwlio,
according to the Board ' s counsel , was in California at the time of the hearing. Facts
relating to Staley were not fully developed in the evidence , and are recounted only briefly
herein. Beck stated that Staley's "work was all right for the money he was getting", but
criticized his argumentative manner . The statements of other witnesses that Staley was
voluble and talked "on both sides " of any question , does not detract from the credible
testimony that lie was an outspoken Union supporter
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1435
On August 14, at the beginning of the clay's work, the welders gathered at their
place of work, and engaged in a work stoppage over a wage dispute. The assem-
bly men began their work, but soon were held up because of the absence of
welders Hughes' foreman told him nothing could be done until the welders
returned. Eiler and Hughes accompanied Staley and other employees from
their department, in going to the welding shop. All remained there until the
plant superintendent, Roland Beck, appeared at about 8 o'clock. The welders
presented their request for a wage increase equal to other individual increases
reported in the plant, but were induced to return to work until C. D. Beck
arrived Thereupon, Staley, as spokesman for the other employees, requested
a wage increase to the top of their wage bracket. Likewise, he and the others
were told to go back to their jobs until the managing partner appeared. All
the workmen returned to work and continued on their jobs until the noon hour,
when they left for lunch.
In the meantime, the plant superintendent went to the home of C D. Beck and
reported the occurrence. Beck instructed the plant superintendent to discharge
Staley, Eiler and Hughes When these men returned from their lunch, they were
notified of their discharges None of the others were discharged.19
Beck testified that he selected Staley, Eiler and Hughes for discharge because
they were "bottlenecking," retarding production 20 He explained that the plant
production fell off contemporaneously with the beginning of the Union campaign
in June, and.continued below normal until November, at which time new men
were trained to replace those discharged. In support of his testimony there was
introduced in evidence a "Motor Vehicle Production Schedule" prepared for and
approved by the War Production Board.21 The schedule disclosed that the
Respondents were operating below their estimated production, but it gave no
indication of the cause for the deficiency The evidence disclosed that during a
part of July the buck assembly department had in use at times only three of the
four assembly stalls Beck testified that frame sections accumulated there,
indicating that work was retarded in the operations of Staley , Eller and Hughes.
He attributed no responsibility to other assemblers who worked with them, with
20 There was some testimony that the grievances of the welders and of the remaining
workers were not pressed further , and in some way were adjusted.
20 Beck testified he was advised to "break bottlenecks " by the Cleveland Ordnance Dis-
trict by discharging , is necessary , any employees causing them This statement was not
corroborated by other evidence If true, it was not expressed as a mandatory order nor
to have application only to union supporters, and in itself would not afford immunity
for a violation of the Act.
21 In March , the Respondents came under the supervision of the civilian branch of the
Cleveland Ordnance District , and thereafter they were required to order critical parts in
accordance with their estimated pioduction as approved from month to month The
schedule disclosed a monthly output in 1944 according to the following tabulation,
Estimated Produced
January-------------------------------------------- X15 17
February------------------------------------------- 15 17
March---------------------------------------------- 20 15
April----------------------------------------------- 15 15
May------------------------------------------------- 15 19
June----------------------------------------------- 20 10
July----------------------------------------------- 20 14
August--------------------------------------------- 20 14
September------------------------------------------ 25 14
October--------------------------------------------- 20 14
November------------------------------------------- 20 15
December------------------------------------------- 25 16
The estimates for January and February, before coming under the supervision of
the Cleveland Oiduance District, are unexplained.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
one exception ' The evidence indicates that frame sections did accumulate at
times before buck assembly, but this occurred in the ordinary course of work.
Employees called as witnesses were mutually corroborative in testifying that
slackened production in buck assembly was attributable to the shortage of
welders, and Beck admitted that the unavailability of welders had been given
frequently as an excuse for delays on the production line. In his testimony,
Beck disclosed he discontinued his personal supervision of shop operations in the
Spring of 1944, and that "since the Union started in the shop" he devoted more
and more time to sales efforts, leaving the shop supervision to the plant superin-
tendent whom Beck stated was then "broke in." There was no indication what
effect this change in supervision had on production. According to Beck, the
Respondents occasionally repaired damaged buses, the work on which was not
reported on the "Motor Vehicle Production Schedule." Such a bus was received
late in June and was completed early in August, requiring 937 man-hours of
work. Apart from this, and as noted above, during the week of July 4 each
employee worked 30 hours instead of the usual 55 hours.
With reference to Eller, Beck stated that he was annoying in his persistent
efforts to get a raise in wages, and that he had the worst record in the plant
for absenteeism." On cross-examination, however, he testified he never talked
to Eller about his absenteeism, and "never paid a whole lot of attention" to
Eiler's efforts to get a raise and did not consider it a factor in his discharge.
Beck disclosed that Eiler had been assigned to different jobs in the plant dur-
ing his 10 years of employment, and on his last assignment in the more skilled
operation of buck assembly man. Beck credits Hughes for training Eiler for
this operation. Eiler testified without refutation that he had been commended
by his foremen for his work in various operations, both before and after his
discharge.
With reference to Hughes, Beck testified that he was "disgruntled", and had
been since August 1943 when he received a wage cut. The evidence disclosed
that Hughes had suffered a 4-cent reduction in his wage rate from August 4
to October 2, 1943, at which time his rate was increased 5 cents. When Beck
was asked, "But, were you satisfied with his work [after he received his
increase] ?" Beek testified "He seemed to be doing all right, yes." He added,
"We were going all right . . . until the middle of June", when the Union came
in. According to Beek, from the beginning of the Union campaign until, August
14th, Hughes worked only "enough to get by without getting fired". In support
of this, the Respondents relied on a statement made by Hughes to a fellow
worker, following the incident in July described above, when Hughes was denied
his vacation pay. In substance, Hughes declared he did not intend to do any
more than he had been doing, because the Respondents had refused to give him
this vacation pay as well as having imposed on him the pay cut during the
preceeding year. However, the assemblyman to whom Hughes made the state-
ment did not observe any slackening in Hughes' work. Hughes testified, without'
22 Beck testified about ten men worked as frame and panel assemblers At one point
in the hearing he said that the men employed in the "set up" of frame sections, namely,
Eller and Hughes, and Stagg who was Filer's helper, caused the "tie up of production".
Later, however, he said that Stagg was not responsible for it, and was put in Eiler's place
after the latter was discharged.
za When first testifying, Beck did not mention Filer's absenteeism ; but after lunch recess,
he was reexamined on his reasons for discharge of Eiler and then assigned it as a cause.
It is evident that Eller was frequently absent, a practice that had extended over several
months. Filer attributed it to an eye affliction, caused by the glare of the welding are
when used near him. He had reported this affliction frequently to the Respondent.
when used near him He had reported this affliction frequently to the Respondents.
until his discharge, without criticism
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1437
refutation, that he was commended by his foremen for the performance of his
work, he was never criticized concerning it, and the only occasion of any com-
plaint was in July when he asked why he was denied his vacation pay. Ac-
cording to Hughes, whom the Trial Examiner credits, on that occasion the plant
superintendent told him the reason for withholding his vacation pay was due
to his "holding up the line", and stated that he knew nothing about it but that was
what C. D. Beck had said.
In contrast to Beck's testimony that Eiler and Hughes were retarding the
work, about which he admittedly made no comment to them, several employees
testified that both men were good workmen. The Respondents disclosed that
Filer and Hughes each were increased 3 cents in his wage rate to 88¢ per hour
early in August, shortly before their discharge. The Trial Examiner believes and
finds their work was satisfactory to the Respondents in June, July and August,
prior to their discharge.
As indicated above in the discussions of the foremen with Eiler and Hughes,
and as admitted by Beck, the Respondents knew of their Union acitvity and
adherence. The significance attached to this is revealed in Beck's own words,
when he testified that he had decided to rid himself of Staley, Eiler and Hughes
before the day of their discharge, if and when he "had any trouble". The
incident of August 14, when he was troubled by the work stoppage in the plant,
alone relates to Beck's avowed reason of having found these men, among others,
to be the "bottle neck" retarding production.
F. Concluding findings
1. Interference, icstraint, and coercion
Respondents' managing partner revealed his anti-union animus in his ad-
mitted statement to his employees that "unions were a racket" and in his
remark at the hearing that the Union representative could not "do my men
any good from a representative standpoint". This disapproval of the Union
and disparagement of its organizer was expressed to the employees when Beck
said he was "against unions", and. when he vilified the Union by saying the
C. I. 0 was a "racket", a "damned political racket". Cautioning his employees
to return from the Union meeting with "changed minds", he gave warning to
its adherents of "sticking [their] necks out". The extremity of the reprisal
to be visited upon them is disclosed in his remark concerning Staley, Eiler and
Hughes, of whom he intended to rid himself "if he had any trouble". The threat
of discharge, implied in his speech, was exemplified in his act of ordering the
summary dismissal of these men.
Such discouragement of the employees from supporting the Union, and such
disparagement of its purposes, were the motives in the Respondents' conduct
when Beck summoned Hughes and Hendricks to his office because they were
Union committeemen. Without warrant, he imposed on them accountability
for any sabotage which might later occur; lie threatened to degrade them by
Federal investigation if such did occur ; he asserted lie would hold them per-
sonally liable for any damage done; and thereafter he punished them by with-
holding their vacation pay so long as they continued to adhere to the Union,
but rewarded Hendricks with his vacation pay when he ceased to serve as
committeeman , The practices of asking prospective employees whether they
had union affiliation, of questioning individual employees whether they were
Union representatives, of attempting to discover the Union's strength in the
plant of attributing to it "communistic" tendencies, of assuring the "key-men"
selected for their influence in their respective departments that Respondents
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were seeking to increase wages and would do more for the employees than the
Union,-all were more subtle but no less significant measures employed by
Respondents in July in the design to deflect the employees' interest in the Union
and defeat their selection of a representative'for collective bargaining. Prac-
tically the same pattern of action was repeated in August, following the con-
ference with union representative Tull, when Beck promoted the incentive pay
plan as an alternative to the wage increase sought by the Union, denouncing
the Union and discouraging adherence to it.
By the planned and persistent course of conduct and the incidents related
above, the Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Discrimination to discourage union membership
In addition to the unredressed reprisal against John Hughes in July, of
withholding Iiis vacation pay because of his adherence to the Union, he was
accused by Respondents of retarding plant production. Thereafter his con-
tinued allegiance to the Union, and that of Clifford Eiler, was discovered
through the inquiry of Foremen Van Horn and Mclnturf Neither Hughes nor
Eiler was called to participate in the conferences with the "key men," when
Beck sought first to deflect Union interest and later to promote an incentive
pay plan contrary to union policy. On August 14th, following the employees'
rejection of the plan, Beck singled out Eiler and Hughes along with Wilbur
Staley for discharge, in furtherance of his stated plan to get rid of these
particular men if he had "any trouble " It is apparent that the "trouble"
which occurred on August 14th arose between the Respondents and the welders,
and that the subsequent participation of Eiler and Hughes was not different
from that of the other employees who then sought a wage increase. Clearly,
all were engaged in a concerted effort to induce Respondents to equalize and
improve their wages. Beck virtually admitted that he discharged Staley, Eiler
and Hughes for this reason. Other admissions of Beek and other accredited
evidence disclose that neither Eiler nor Hughes was discharged for the other
reasons assigned by Beck, relating to absenteeism, employment attitude, and
retarded production. Considered in relation to Staley's activity on that day
and that of the welders and other employees, it is apparent that the Respond-
ents discriminatorily discharged Eiler and Hughes to restrain employees from
engaging in such concerted activity for their mutual aid and benefit, and to
curb activity in the Union.
By discharging Eiler and Hughes the Respondents have discriminated in re-
gard to their tenure of employment, have discouraged membership in the Union,
and have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations described in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom,
C. D. BECK & COMPANY 1439
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
With respect to the discriminatory discharge of William Clifford Eller and
John Taylor Hughes, it will be recommended that the Respondents offer each of
them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
that the Respondents make each of them whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge and by reason of the discrimina-
tory treatment of Hughes with reference to his vacation pay, by payment to
Hughes of his vacation pay withheld in July 1944 and by payment to Eiler and
Hughes respectively of a sum of money equal to the amount each would have
earned as wages from August 14, 1944, the date of discharge of each of them, to
the date of the Respondents ' offer of reinstatement , less the net earnings 24 of each
during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of William Clif-
ford Eller and John Taylor Hughes, and in regard to the terms of employment
relating to vacation pay of said Hughes, the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the Respondents , Hal Peterson , Charlie Peterson , Taylor
Cummins, J . C. Cummins, Kathryn M. Beck and C. D. Beck , doing business as C. D.
Beck & Company , and their agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to hire, tenure, or any term or condition of their
employment ;
24 The net earnings , if any , to be deducted from back pay to Hughes shall not be deducted
from the vacation pay due him. By net earnings" is meant earning less expenses , such as
tor transportation , room , and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining
work and working elsewhere than for the Respondents , which would not have been incurred
but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment
elsewhere See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R. B 440 . Monies received for work
performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be
considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing their employees
in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form, join , or assist Inter-
national Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer William Clifford Eiler and John Taylor Hughes immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole William Clifford Eiler and John Taylor Hughes for any
loss of pay each has suffered , or may suffer , by reason of the discrimination
against him , by payment to Hughes of his vacation pay withheld in July 1944,
-'and by payment to Eiler and Hughes respectively of a sum of money equal to
the amount each would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date the Respondents offer reinstatement , less his net earnings during
such period,
(c) Post at its plant at Sidney , Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Exhibit A". Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director of the Eighth Region, after being signed by the Respondents ' repre-
sentative , shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon the receipt
thereof, and maintained by then for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondents notify said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
Naional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondents to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board , Series 3 as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen ( 15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to-the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all
motions or objections ) as he relies upon , together with the original and four
'copies of a brief in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such
statement of 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
MELTON BOYD,
Trial Exam-vier
Dated March 19, 1945
C. D. BECK & COMPANY
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1441
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
William Clifford Eller, John Taylor Hughes
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.
HAL PETERSON, CHARLIE PETERSON, TAYLOR CUMMIBS, J. C CUMMINS,
KATHRYN M. BECK, AND C. D. BECK, DOING BUSINESS AS C. D. BECK
& COMPANY
By------------------------------------- ---------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------------
NOTE . Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.